The lead[edit]

The lead is currently (28.7 Dec 2008) too long and inclusive and fails in its purpose: to succinctly but accurately define the subject. The word easily gets us into philosophical hair-splitting, which is not appropriate in a lead. Better to briefly define it, point out the deeper implications of the concept, and list the various subtypes of a name.

The lead currently begins with "A name is a label for a noun..........". I don't think so. If it's a label, it's a label for a thing or concept, not for a noun. But even "label" is not a good choice of words because that connotes a physical object (a name tag) more than "name" does.

How about:

A name is a word or phrase that identifies something. The "something" being identified can be a specific person, animal, object, place, or idea or it can be a general class or group of such entities.

The concept expressed by this word is a basic one in language (grammar, semantics, and lexicography) and philosophy (metaphysics and epistemology).

In English grammar, a name is expressed as a noun or noun phrase.

[Then on to a discussion of the subtypes: proper name, general name, personal name, etc.]

Frappyjohn (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Francisco example[edit]

The article claims that there are "at least three" series of parallel streets that are named alphabetically in San Francisco, but I can only think of one series, the Sunset District streets referenced direectly in the article. Could somebody please clarify where the other two series are?The Opressed One 19:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC) ..k;lk;kl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.248.120 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They cross each other in Bayview: Coleman Donahue Earl Fitch Griffith Hawes Ingalls Jennings Keith Lane Mendel Newhall Phelps Quint Rankin Selby Toland Upton, versus Burke Custer Davidson Evans Fairfax Galvez Hudson Innes Jerrold Kirkwood LaSalle McKinnon Newcomb Oakdale Palou Quesada Revere Shafter Thomas Underwood VanDyke Wallace Yosemite Armstrong Bancroft Carroll Donner Egbert Fitzgerald Gilman Hollister Ingerson Jamestown Key LeConte Meade. (Thomas Guide 2003) —Tamfang (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plato in the Philosophical Discussion[edit]

Plato in the stylus discusses two types of philosophical views on names, namely naturalism that all names have inherent meaning and another view in which names are purely the convention of societies. If I had the time I'd summarize the work and its relevance to meaning here but I'm extremely surprised that Kripke and Russell are mentioned before Plato.

someone should rectify it.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.196.209 (talk) 04:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

uncharted pieces[edit]

i'd suggest a disambiguity step: named - interned domain name server daemon.

It seems to be that the external link "Copernicus Consulting - Trademark & Naming Experts" is less of a useful link and more of an advertisement for a service.

It seems like the names of person section should be in a separate article, but Personal name is misleading, since the term is commonly a synonym for the first name. Name of a person is graceless but accurate. Also, Arabic name etc should be something like Names of Arabic persons or some such since they don't say anything about the naming of places or objects. Stan 07:32 31 May 2003 (UTC)

I agree completely. I'm starting Human names. Akb4 20:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posted by an anon user under Common and Scientific Names; not sure what they meant, as there is no such article. Elf | Talk 00:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I was wondering the Name density of everyone. Please go to that topic and edit it.

Elf | Talk 00:39, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Someone said spam?[edit]

"the word name is also used for cow(Bos taurus) killing in New York"

This doesn't sound to me like it means anything. Delete?

Similar names are an interesting anomaly in the English language and for that matter culture. Names like Janice and Deborah can be, for all practical purposes, be considered similar to one. Conversely, uncommon names, like Chad, do not actually exist in the real world. The essence of fiction.

That was an eminent example of a mild and loony WP:VANDAL joke. I don't know when you said that, because you forgot to sign your posts with ~~~~, so therefore I took the oportunity to explain the pretty obvious. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only Iceland[edit]

In Russia (as well as at the very least Ukraine and Belarus) patronymics are used until this very day. A person has a first name, patronymic and than a family name Beta m

Low quality?[edit]

"Behind the Name etymology of names" has been removed under the pretense of being low-quality website, but personally I have managed to find much more information on it than on Ancestry.com, and the information is actually internationalized not limited to United States, which is very important (you know there are other countries out there. I'll wait for a response, and then restore the link if there will be no reason provided to back up why this was a "low-quality website." Beta m (talk)

Since behindthename.com is for first names only, the link should only be in the Given name article (which does have the BTN link). The ancestry.com link covers both first and last names. It is unfortunate that name selection for ancestry.com is so American/British-centric, but the Oxford books they use for references do give some of the most complete and most accurate name etymologies that I have ever seen. Compare "Gregory", for example, where the ancestry.com information is the only place that I've ever seen that explains why the name was so popular with popes and saints (it's basically an ecclesiastical pun)— compare [1] with [2]. What I most wanted to do was delete the babynamebox.com link, which has been spammed into practically every name-oriented article in the Wikipedia, and has very minimal definitions (plus eliminate the MSN "dress" in the ancestry.com link). If you really want to add the link back in, I will not get into a revert war, but I hope that you understand my reasoning. BlankVerse ∅ 05:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Point about given names taken, I won't put it back. I just found this link while searching for something else, and thought I'd add it to this article, not realizing that it was already available in the one that is more appropriate. Beta m (talk)

Proper names, in intro[edit]

Can the intro be fixed by someone more knowledgable, as to whether it includes named non-living entities or not? For example the following:

FT2 (Talk) 10:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

nyc example[edit]

I'm rewriting the bit about nyc street names. Right now it reads:

In Manhattan, street names are numbers and East-West streets are "Streets" whereas North-South streets are "Avenues".

I think this would be pretty rough to read for many people, especially if they aren't totally fluent in English. Akb4 19:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verbal Usage for naming?[edit]

I hate to be well, how do you say, technical, or overtly politically correct, but... The line which reads that "naming" is a "verbal" label, sort of struck me as odd. Because language has a wide variety of adaptations, some of which are non-verbal, such as ASL, better known as American Sign Language, commonly used by the Deaf or Hard of Hearing, I have taken out the word "verbal". Also, almost every culture around the world has used visual, facial, or body cues to express ideas, and/or emotions. These are also non-verbal elements. A deaf person does have the ability to name things.

Thanks, Ryver wolf 69.245.175.43 04:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word verbal seems to have taken over from oral in popular language, because oral gives some people the giggles, but the root verbum means word. The elements of sign language are words – discrete arbitrary signs – even though their medium is different. —Tamfang 06:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cynonymy[edit]

Why is DOG names linked from this page?

Why not? —Tamfang 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's been decided it's not relevant to link to human name websites. Linking to a dog name site, from a names page is clearly link spam. If it's not, then it's just as relevant to add at least another 100 links at the bottom of the page, to cat names, fish names, people names, Muslim names, boy names, etc, any type of name.

This is a link to a commercial site for the purpose of internet marketing on the term "dog names". It is not a link made for the purpose of providing a relevant link to a site having real value to the topic of names.

Animal use of names[edit]

I have removed the above section, which had the text:

Recently, research has demonstrated a long-speculated concept in animal communication - that at least one species other than humans use symbolic, personal, names. At present this has been identified only in dolphins, who use whistling communication to convey information including the equivalent of personal names. The names are specific to individuals, who will respond even when the voice, speaker, inflection and other cues are removed from the sound.[3] [4].

This is a misleading summary of the research. In reality, dolphins do not use whistles in any sense remotely similar to the human use of names. What the research showed was mere that a dolphin can identify another dolphin by listening to the other dolphin's personal whistle. Dolphins do not then go on to use other dolphins' whistles to refer to that dolphin or anything of the sort.

See Language Log's summary. — Haeleth Talk 09:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubled first section[edit]

Why is section "Use of names" repeated twice on screen now (20:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)) but is just once in the source code?

rozek19

Self-reference[edit]

There are two links to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. One ought to be removed, but which one: the one at the top (because it is more on-topic under the header) or the one under the naming conventions header (because it's not helpful if Wikipedians can't access it easily)? --Gray PorpoiseYour wish is my command! 22:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shakespeare[edit]

I don't know what exactly to say about this. It needs to be looked at, fixed, and given articles. Or something. --8472

External links[edit]

I removed the external links - the ranking of name popularity in the U.S. and other western countries doesn't really add anything to the page in my opinion. On top of that, the second external link had too much spam, as per WP:EL. The following EL would be better, providing essentially the same information but from an official website and without the spam.

Australian government database of names

WLU 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming[edit]

Naming used to be it's own article, but per discussion it was deleted (and theoretically merged with brand. Because I've never done this before, I am including the text of the original article below so that better editors than I may ensure merge nirvana:

-Naming Process- Naming is usually based on a clearly defined marketing strategy or business plan and includes not only creative development of a name, but also its sound harmony test, a comprehensive analysis of its perception by a target audience (including groups comprised of native speakers of different languages), identification of a degree of its novelty, measures of increasing its patent protection, and the patent protection itself.

Professional development of a name also implies that the specialists involved in the name creation should take into consideration possibilities of its graphic design, its further use within the trade mark, elements of package design and company style.

-Result- The intended result of the naming process is an actual word, newly coined pseudoword or various combinations of them that might not be easily pronounced or catchy, but have to meet the above criteria.

--Cjs56 05:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has very little to do with name to me, and a lot to do with 'brand' or 'branding'. At most, I'd say two sentences with a ((main)) to brand. WLU 13:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, and upon a more thorough reading today, everything that should be in this article is already in this article and everything that should be in brand is in brand. --Cjs56 23:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, I rule :) Glad you approve, thanks for the info from naming. WLU 13:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names in religious thought[edit]

See also Pseudonym#Name_in_religion This section needs expanding into an article in its own write, but I cannot do it do to lack of access to sources! The name of a character in both mythology and in religion often identifies that character's function, if the translation of the name is known. Naming something is the first step in gaining control over it, which is why the naming of brands and of Wikipedia articles is an issue. Naming a child or animal and getting it to respond to that name is a first step in getting it to respond to verbal commands. Getting a child on the autistic spectrum to respond to its name is an issue. Naming the name of a god in order to gain control over it is definitely a religious issue. A superstitious issue is the bandying about of one's own, true name in the hearing of evil spirits that may bring about one's premature death; so, too, bandying it about in the hearing of law enforcement officials. Pawyilee 10:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your identification of names as a source of control is original research without a source; you might want to write your sourced, suggested additions on a sub page before placing it on the main page. WLU 19:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I live in a remote province of Thailand with a sloooooooow Internet connection, and can't get to sources! I put this here as an appeal to someone who can. But, you don't have to look far for examples, such as the next time someone gives you an order, or you give an order someone else! Pawyilee 16:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not having to look far requires using my own experience, which means using my own knowledge as a primary source, which is right out. WLU 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is why I put this on the TALK page and NOT in the article! Pawyilee 14:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Best Google can do in the time wasted: not good enuf.

http://www.spiralnature.com/magick/mysticalnatureofnames.html By: Jeffry R. Palmer Ph.D. http://koti.mbnet.fi/neptunia/essays/namep1.htm ANYARA-APHORISMS http://linguisticmystic.com/2006/07/30/this-post-left-unnamed-so-that-you-dont-have-power-over-it/ http://www.excommunicate.net/understanding-the-power-of-names http://academicmaps.blogspot.com/2006/12/positive-power-of-names.html http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Jewish+Education/Compelling+Content/Worldwide+Community/Connecting+to+Community/The+Power+of+Names.htm http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=2245 ASK THE RABBI The Real Camelot: Paganism and the Arthurian Romances, by John Darrah (Thames and Hudson) Pawyilee 15:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make or edit the section, either do so, draft it here or on a user sub page and ask for feedback. WLU 13:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article lacks discussion of logos[edit]

Naming, in the Greek and Christian tradition of thought, is to be distinguished from an utterance. This name is called "logos" and should definitely be discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.107.91.99 (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

named is the common name for the BIND name-daemon on Unix/Linux systems, not just the past tense of "to name"[edit]

I do not believe that the Wikipedia "named" page should redirect to name. Named should be a disambiguation page that shows both naming and "named". If I am overruled on this, please consider adding something to the top of the name page or the disambiguation page.

"BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is the most commonly used DNS server on the Internet, especially on Unix-like systems, where it is a de facto standard." Source: BIND

"BIND ships on most Unix platforms, where it is most often also referred to as named (name daemon) and is the most widely deployed DNS server." Source: Comparison of DNS server software#BIND

--GlenPeterson (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

I guess someone decided to edit the article and mash on their keyboard in the process of that editting... so I took the liberty of undoing it.Dannydog3067 (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concept of naming in Buddhism[edit]

Dorje Pakmo#Names http://www.namgyal.org/articles/names.cfm

-- 88.75.206.136 (talk) 09:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names Given to Items[edit]

There is currently neither a page nor any mention of the topic of names given to items, such as weapons, computers, or custom cars. There has to be a technical term for it; either that or it falls under an already listed catagory and needs to be referenced in that catagory's description. A good example of this type of name would be Bilbo Baggins's sword, "Sting" from the Lord of the Rings books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing Dairu (talk • contribs) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Be welcome to, if you know of sources that deal with that interesting subtopic. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Possible confusion[edit]

The section Naming convention deals with a lot of things that are not names and others that are. First of all: a star "name" such as "HR1877" is not considered a name by astronomers, but instead as a designation – maybe a linguist or a philosopher would disagree. However, I'm pretty sure that the philosophers, linguists and the other scientists agree that in science most of the "naming" is creating terms, which are not names, but instead standardized non-name nouns (so called NNN:s) (disregard that last thing). I don't exactly know how to improve the section, but anyone having an idea might be WP:BOLD – the article deserves WP:BOLD. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another philosophical question: is a "name" that is extremely rarely used really a name? (It's not like an unused name simply is an object that has never been accessed, a name exists only if uttered). A "name" that is commonly used is certainly a name, a "name" never used is not a name, but a "name" that is only used once or twice? Isn't that a failed naming? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming systems[edit]

I don't see any mention of the system used by either NATO (for Sov aircraft) or RAF (for their own). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fictional names[edit]

This topic is very interesting. An article could be written on J.R.R. Tolkien's alone. I don't think it is important enough for this main article however. I removed the totally uncited sections. I hope someone starts an article on the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Jaibhim forcing pictures from his community into the article[edit]

User Jaibhim is constantly posting pictures related with a community he is affiliated to, hence the images have been removed under Wikipedia:Conflict of interest Wikipedia:Vested interestNickelroy (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nickelroy is vandalizing by removing Name change movement photograph[edit]

Nickelroy is constantly vandalizing Wikipedia articles. This user never followed WP:BRD. This user is contentiously Wikipedia:Harassment doing for me. This user never stated particular reasons for removing following photograph which is very much relevant to this article. For removing any information follow WP:BRD because image fulfill wiki policies and very much relevant to this article. Discuss on talk page if image is irreverent for this article.

JAIBHIM5 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naming traditions[edit]

I think this article is really interesting, especially the biblical name section. I'd like to see a few more citations in this area and throughout. I also think a section containing information on historical naming trends might be interesting, especially in connection with the biblical information, as biblical naming tends to run in populations where faith is predominant, for instance many Catholics are named Mary or Marie. Keep up the good work! MissCrystal907 (talk) 04:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problematic use of "within" for "in."[edit]

In the version of the article I came across I found this sentence:

Names can identify a class or category of things, or a single thing, either uniquely, or within a given context.

I changed "within" to "in." Here were the reasons I gave in explanation box on the edit page:

"Within" is used when speaking of the ENTIRETY of an enclosed space some portion of which does or may contain something whose location is in question—it emphasizes spatial capacity; "in" is used to indicate the fact that a thing occupies some definite position that is part of an enclosed space—it indicates simple spatial occupation. A context does not have any spatial capacity, so "within" is not correct. I have therefore corrected it to "in."

Just Plain Bill did not accept this argument, and reverted the change. I think my argument was right. The entries on "within" and "in" in the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, support my argument, even though the lexicographers were not careful, as I was, not to use any word that contained "in" to distinguish or define the two.

Here is the AHD's treatment of "within"; I have not reproduced the original italics, but have put in bold the material of particular interest:

with·in (wĭth-ĭn, wĭth-) adv.
1. In or into the inner part; inside: "restaurants and wine houses jammed along the earthen streets ... banners flapping to announce the delights within" (Nicole Mones).
2. Inside the mind, heart, or soul; inwardly: the fear that lies within.

Notice that this is the definition of the adverb "within" as it acts as an adverb; notice also that in this use, the adverb always comes last. Here is the definition of "within" as a preposition:

prep. 1. In the inner part or parts of; inside: the streets within the city; resentment seething within him.
2.a. Not exceeding the limits or extent of in distance or time: got within ten miles of home; stayed within earshot; arrived within two days.
b. Not exceeding the fixed limits of; not beyond: lived within her income.
c. In the scope or sphere of: acted within the law; within the medical profession.
d. Used to indicate a range to be covered or an amount necessary before something can happen: The team has pulled to within three points and can tie the game with a field goal.

Notice that the expressions in bold all involve the theme of capacity, of a space large enough to hold many things, of a space or extent that encompasses lesser extents that agents can cover or that is established by a boundary that agents can pass only after they have traversed the whole extent of the encompassed field.

Here is the AHD's entry on the preposition "in":

prep.
1.a. Within the limits, bounds, or area of: was hit in the face; born in the spring; a chair in the garden.
b. From the outside to a point within; into: threw the letter in the wastebasket.
2. To or at a situation or condition of: was split in two; in debt; a woman in love.
3.a. Having the activity, occupation, or function of: a life in politics; the officer in command.

Notice that, although the preposition is defined as "within the limits, bounds, or area of," which is repetition of the theme of extent, you cannot substitute "within" for "in" in any of the examples—it makes no sense to say "he hit him within the face" or "he was born within the spring" or "the chair is within the garden." Why not? Well, it must be because the information the preposition gives us does not concern the extent of a dimension that an agent must cross or that contains a number of positions that a thing or event can occupy, but rather only the one and only position that the event or thing occupies. There are several paragraphs in this discussion, not within it.

A sentence has words in it, not within it. When you quote somebody's words, and they object that you quoted them out of context, not outside of context, they insist that you quote the words in context, not within context. That is because a definite spatial position is the issue, not the extent or range of a dimension.

I am aware that the use of "within" for "in" is catching on, but I think there are good reasons not to accept that usage, and to correct "within" to "in" when the context requires emphasis on position rather than range or extent. Consider these statements:

I will be there in an hour.
I will be there within the hour.

The first statement means that I will have arrived after sixty minutes have elapsed: the moment of elapse is the temporal position that my arrival will occupy; if the temporal position of my arrival is the moment forty-five minutes have elapsed, you are justified in say, "Wow! You got here fast!" The second means that I will arrive more or less just before the sixty minutes are about to elapse—that my arrival will be one of the many temporal positions that an hour can hold; if the temporal position of my arrival is the moment forty-five minutes have elapsed, all you are justified in saying is, "Now that you're here, let's get started."

Now consider these:

The treasure is in the house.
The treasure is within the house.

The first statement means that the treasure occupies one particular spatial position of the many positions bounded by the house; we know that this is what it means because in response to the person who made the statement you can ask, "Where is it exactly?" The second means that the treasure occupies some spatial position bounded by the house but that, the position being unknown, each of the house's bounded compartments must be searched to find it. We know that this is what the statement means because you cannot ask the same question; you can only say, "Where should we start looking?" Those bounded compartments, however, are in the house, not within it, because they take up and divide the space in the house; there is no range of undifferentiated space that one can traverse that is greater than the space the compartments occupy.

I think that, if you are in doubt as to whether "in" or "within" is correct, you must ask yourself whether, in context, the statement requires you to emphasize spatial position or spatial range.

I do of course admit that, in principle, the AHD could be wrong, and that my interpretation of the AHD could be wrong, but anyone who advances this claim will need to appeal to a dictionary of greater authority than the AHD (like the OED), and use counterexamples that show my examples not to be paradigmatic of the differences between the two prepositions. Until then, I submit that "within" must be changed to "in." Wordwright (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The OED does in fact allow a figurative sense for "within" as "in the extent of something abstract" especially connoting "in or not beyond."
Your example of the treasure in the house misses the mark. "In the house" need not mean "[occupying] one particular spatial position of the many positions bounded by the house". One could just as easily say, "it's in the house, and good luck finding it" without error of diction, grammar, or logic. Just plain Bill (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Just plain Bill
I don't understand your citation from the OED—"in the extent of something abstract" is not intelligible, and I don't understand what is supposed to connote "in and not beyond." I'd appreciate it if you would provide a link.
But I think you're straining here—you appeal to an allowable "figurative" sense without explaining how it is possible to use a preposition "figuratively," but even if you did, the figurative use of "within" has nothing to do with the basic distinction between "in" and "within." It's as though you argued that it is wrong to argue that there is a basic difference between atmosphere and air because the figurative expressions "I didn't like the atmosphere in there" and "There was something unpleasant in the air" are more or less equivalent.
Your counterexample doesn't have any real force. The person who says, "It's in the house, and good luck finding it" is still informing the other person that the thing occupies a particular position—he does not inform the other that he doesn't know where it is, he is not insisting on the extent or range of space that the house encloses, and there could be any number of reasons for his wishing the other luck in finding it—the house could be messy, the thing might be hidden, and so on.
And your observation still doesn't mean that there is no difference at all between "The treasure is in the house" and "The treasure is within the house"—you haven't shown that the two prepositions do not have different senses in general, nor have you shown that we cannot generate an infinite number of sentences in which to substitute "in" for "within" or vice versa results in a change of sense.
But your counterexample does help in forcing me to distinguish the difference in the sense of the two prepositions from the different ways of conceiving the thing with which we use them. If you can conceive of an X as either a simple container without any emphasis on range or as a container whose range is of primary interest, then you will use "in" with the former conception and "within" with the latter. For example:
The bogey is in view.
The bogey is within view.
In the first statement, I implicitly conceive my view as a field one portion of which the bogey now occupies; in the second, I conceive of my view as a field over any portion of which the bogey may range but with respect to that ranging I can now perform different types of visual acts like describing location, targeting, direction, and the like without losing sight of it. But necessarily the object must be large enough to admit of the two conceptions. You cannot say:
The water is within the tub.
The change is within my pocket.
The diamond is within my hand.
Sometimes even with things of vast extent it would be incorrect to emphasize that extent. It is wrong to say:
Superman is flying within the sky.
Moby Dick is the greatest creature within the sea.
Jesus is one of the most influential individuals within history.
The origins of language are lost within the mists of time.
The solar system is within a galaxy we call the Milky Way.
In all these instances we conceive of the thing contained as occupying a single (numerical) position among other positions that things occupy, even though we need not have any particular (fully identified) position in mind. To say that
Paul is in the world, not of it
is not to conceive of Paul as occupying one and only one definite spatial position, but only to conceive of him as at any time occupying some one spatial position. So to say that the treasure is in the house is to say only that it occupies one single numerical spatial position, and does not commit you to conceiving of the house as a container among whose range of space you will need to move in order to find that position.
So my claim is that, if you use "within" with a noun that denotes a thing we cannot conceive as having a range or extent, you violate idiom. A context isn't a physical, but a figurative container, and as a figurative container, it doesn't contain any empty space that things it contains can range across. You have not shown that a context is something that we conceive as encompassing an indeterminate extent of "space" containing more space than items occupying that space and that in dealing with a context one can never know just what position among the other positions a word or phrase will occupy, so it is always possible to say, "Good lucking finding my words within context!" I do not think you can show that it is possible to conceive of a context in this fashion.
So let me ask you simply and directly: is it your contention that "within context" is proper? And is your reason that the use is figurative, which the OED allows, because we conceive of context as a container with more space than occupants? Is it your claim that there is no difference at all in the meaning of the two prepositions? Even if you still think that I have not answered your counterexample, do you think that that one counterexample suffices to show that all the other idiomatic phrases I submitted as disallowing the substitution of "within" are wrong? That you can say, "I punched him within the face"? That you can say, "Sit within that chair?" That you can say, "The sun is high within the sky"?
Most importantly, if you are ready to argue that it is possible to conceive of a context figuratively as a container containing vast extents of unoccupied space, can you argue that, with respect to the sentence in which the disputed "within" occurs, the relation of a thing to be identified to its context is that its spatial position has not been made determinate with respect to the vast extent of the context?
I did not really have these distinctions all clearly in mind when reading "within context" struck me as wrong, but I do think it might help if you consider that my initial sense that it was wrong was not arbitrary. If you consult the Corpus of Contemporary American English, and do a search for "within context," and click "Chart," you will get these results:
SECTION ALL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
FREQ 16 2 1 0 1 12
WORDS (M) 577 116.7 111.8 117.4 113.0 111.4
PER MIL 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.11
Frequency is the number of times the expression occurs in the collection of texts or corpus used as evidence. Words in the millions are the number of words in each corpus—so in the transcripts of spoken English there are 116.7 million words. So in spoken English "within context" occurred 2 times out of 116.7 million words, and thus constituted 0.03% of usage. Here is the evidence for the use of "in context":
SECTION ALL SPOKEN FICTION MAGAZINE NEWSPAPER ACADEMIC
FREQ 1271 319 50 180 138 584
WORDS (M) 577 116.7 111.8 117.4 113.0 111.4
PER MIL 2.20 2.73 0.45 1.53 1.22 5.24
So "in context" occurs 319 times in the 116.7 million words of the corpus of spoken English, making up 2.20% of usage. That is more than a 150% difference.
This statistical evidence does not support the claim that the two prepositions have a different sense, nor the claim that they cannot be substituted for one another without change of sense or offense against idiom, but it does show that overwhelmingly Americans use "in context" rather than "within context." Now, you may be British, but I rather doubt that the percentages would be different in BrE. You cannot use "within context" without offending against the majority of native English speakers' Sprachgefühl.
But again, my main points are that the two prepositions have different senses, that they cannot be substituted for one another without change of meaning, and that when "within" is used as a preposition with a noun that we cannot in general or in context do not conceive as encompassing a range or extent, you violate sense and idiom. You have not addressed these points. I still maintain, then, that "within" should be corrected to "in." Don't you agree? Wordwright (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just checked the British National Corpus for evidence of use of "within context" and "in context" in British English. Here are the results:
Your query "within context" returned 1 hit in 1 text (98,313,429 words [4,048 texts]; frequency: 0.01 instances per million words)
Your query "in context" returned 246 hits in 151 different texts (98,313,429 words [4,048 texts]; frequency: 2.5 instances per million words)
So "in context" is the collocation used by the overwhelming number of speakers of British English, so just in contrast to the sheer frequency of "in context" the use of "within context" must sound like a violation of some sort, if only at first a violation of "expectation," like hearing somebody say "the stripes and stars," instead of "the stars and stripes." But as it turns out, one can give good reasons for describing it as a violation of a more linguistically important sort. Wordwright (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Context" can absolutely be conceptualized as encompassing a range or extent, with an image schema resembling a container. It is not outside the realm of conjecture that such a container has room for more than its contents, and that its boundaries are fuzzy enough to admit gradations of membership, with some members more central than others.

Likewise, "Names can identify a class or category of things..." Classes or categories seldom if ever occupy points in conceptual or physical space. With that in view, it is entirely appropriate to say one fuzzy set lies within another fuzzy set, or outside it, or part way in/out. With that in mind, I consider many of the examples given in the above gallop to be tangential or orthogonal to what properly ought to be the core of a concise, focused argument.

The OED definition I mentioned is sense 9, and may be found in the lower left quadrant of p.3802 of the compact edition that usually sits on a shelf to the left (or east) of the fireplace here.

If it's a measure of Sprachgefühl you're after, then it would make sense to search the British National Corpus for the actual combination of words in question: "... within a given context". I think you will agree that the addition of an article and modifier changes the sense as well as the prosody of it.

For those who go "TL;DR" at the above, it may be summarized as "'tweren't broke, no need to fix it." Just plain Bill (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Just plain Bill You got me! I'm always ready to admit my errors, and I admit that, for whatever reason, I completely overlooked that "a given." But that "given" doesn't change the sense of the preposition, nor does it change the way we conceive of the thing it modifies: in the phrase "at any given time" all the "given" does is to emphasize that no matter the temporal moment you choose, the event or state of affairs under discussion will obtain; its presence does not indicate that "time" has a sense different from the one it has in the phrase "at any time," because in both phrases "time" means "particular temporal moment" and not "the domain of duration." As in any other given phrase, all "given" does when it modifies "context" is emphasize the particularity of that context—it doesn't require or allow conceiving the context as having an extent.
And you evaded my question. We are talking about the act of giving a name to an object that does not identify it uniquely regardless of context but identifies it uniquely only in that restricted context, and you haven't shown that context in general can be conceptualized as an extent, nor that it can be conceptualized as an extent in the context of the phrase "in context" or "a given context." When you give a name to an individual in a "given" context, you are giving it to that individual so far as it just does occupy a position in that context; a context is the same sort of concrete but immaterial reality as a game; when we say that a player is in a game, we do not understand him to be occupying one spatial position in anything that is of great spatial extent. If I say, "In any given game, Kobe is likely to do something so spectacular you won't really know what happened," "given" does not change the sense of the word "game" or the way we conceive it.
For instance, a dog whose real name is Morton, when hired to play a family's pet in a film, is given the name "Lassie," even though the dog is not a collie and the film is not part of the "Lassie" franchise. The context of the film is not conceptualized as a space whose extent encompasses a range of positions any one of which the actors can range across in calling the dog by its pretend-name "Lassie"; it is conceptualized only as the only framework against which "Lassie" denotes that particular dog, and no other, and only so long as the cameras are rolling; when the cameras stop, its trainer says, "Here, Morton!" At the beginning of a Shakespeare play is the list of the dramatis personae, and you see a line like "Ethelred, Duke of Moucerstershire," even though, in the play, only his wife calls him "Ethelred," and then only in their bedchambers or elsewhere in private; in public, like everybody else, she calls him "Moucerstershire." In each given context, his interlocutors use a name that uniquely designates him even though in each generation the eldest son has the same first name and title. The context isn't understood to have any leeway; one is in the context just as one is in the world, just as you and I are in a discussion.
But I'm afraid you didn't keep your mind concentrated on your images. Can a container have fuzzy boundaries? Can a container have room for more than its contents—that is, the things that occupy its space? Are the contents of a container members of the container? If the boundaries of anything are fuzzy, doesn't that just mean that it isn't easy to tell what things are outside the boundaries and what things are inside them? Does that difficulty mean that there are grades of membership among the things that are definitely inside the boundaries? Does a thing at the center of a space have a greater degree of insideness in the container than a thing near the fuzzy boundaries, but definitely not in the band of fuzziness? I really can't think of any instances in which classes and categories do occupy physical space, even if they seldom do, but I'm a little bit puzzled as to why you think that they seldom occupy conceptual space—those infrequent occasions apart, what space do they occupy?
I do agree that categories and classes can have fuzzy boundaries—I'm sure that photography is an art, but not sure that even the most elaborate and colorful graffiti is a work of art; I'm not sure whether numbers are real (in the same sense as a stone is real), or whether they can be said to exist, even though I am sure that there can be no real things that aren't numerable. I also agree that one fuzzy set can lie within another fuzzy set; in fact, I like talking about fuzzy sets—it makes me think of an image of a Penthouse pet, a woman smiling at you, her sheer teddy draped over her eighth-wonder-of-the-world breasts and down to her muff, her long legs cascading down to her feet covered by mules sporting a candy-cotton puff. But with that within mind, I don't agree that a fuzzy set is a container, nor do I agree that fuzzy sets, classes, and categories are contexts.
I wish I had a compact OED; I wish I had a fireplace. I was hoping you had a link to some free complete OED online, because I no longer have one. Oh, well!
But now, really, Billy boy! "Image schema"? "Quadrant"? "Prosody"? I'm sorry to have to say this, but it seems to me that, with the sudden shift within your diction, you're simply trying to show off. Can't be sure of course; all I can see is that you have contradicted me but haven't treated the disputed passage at all, so I'll just presume that, for reasons I cannot fathom, you've invested your intellectual pride in that "within," but you can't get a return on your investment through reason, and want to joust. And "TLDR" is just a way of spitting within somebody's face, and is meant to distract—it's different, of course, from leaping and leaping and not being able to reach, and then complaining of sour grapes, but still you're somewhat like the fox within that given fable. I'm glad you've given me the chance to think about this; it's been an enjoyable exercise! But I know that you dragons enjoy your slumber, so I'm sorry to have roused you. Wordwright (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe I didn't make it obvious enough for you that occupying a point in space and occupying a range or extent in space are two different things, whether the space is physical or metaphorical. Just plain Bill (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2019[edit]

Ancient Indian i.e. Vedic culture has attributed great significance to names - name of Gods, name of humans, name of rivers, name of mountains, names of celestial objects etc.

All ancient names in India carry some meaning deeply linked to the language Sanskrit.

Some examples - Krishna meaning one who is black, one who attracts. Aditya meaning one who is in place from beginning, one whose mother is Aditi.

There was a system to identify name of parents, e.g. Son of Vasudeva is Vaasudeva. Son of Angirasa is Aangirasa.

So, any discussion on name is incomplete without mentioning the most ancient tradition in the world for names! Chirag Patel 17:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self-namegiving controversy[edit]

The society and the parents are extremely strict to show that they do not care at all about the individual. They don't allow the self-naming of the individual. It is legally permitted in some countries only if the original name sounds bad, or if there's proof of use of a different name.

Humanists (not atheohumanists, but their hypernymous group) propose:

  1. (ability to change name with improved laws) adults (18 years old) should be able to change their name
  2. (personal and official question the state will make) 24 year old citizens, should be personally asked if they want to change name

Still playing with the state would be illegal. One will not be able to change officially names many times (for practical reasons). They can use nicknames. The point isn't to play with the state but to promote the culture of self-naming. The culture of self-namegiving isn't tautological to allowing the self-namegiving; that's why myelinated 24 year old adults would have to be asked in person.

Is self-namegiving good, bad, ethical, unethical or neutral?
Are we slaves or animals to be named by others?
Anyone has a non-infinite range of knowledge and inner tendencies. Thus self-namegiving is still biased. Is it less biased to oppress the citizens? Don't we respect the self-identification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8240:8C00:94C9:3C0C:F946:480E (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Syntax Housekeeping[edit]

(1549h, 23 March 2021) A period is needed at the end of the first sentence of the "Naming conventions" section. Page is protected so I can't do it myself. Eastwood Blues (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

mediacy[edit]

In some East Asian cultures it is common for one syllable in a two-syllable given name to be a generation name which is the same for immediate siblings.

Is there another kind of siblings? I believe in some languages a cousin is a "distant sibling" but in China they'd have the same generation name. —Tamfang (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roman naming[edit]

The Roman naming convention denotes social rank.

Weakly, and only in the late Empire, it seems from that article. I'm going to remove this sentence. There must be much better examples of rank expressed in names, from other cultures. —Tamfang (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023[edit]

names are used more by others than yourself 2601:1C1:8681:6890:974:30C3:89D7:1308 (talk) 04:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Tollens (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories