![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are the alpha-numerical strings random (as in vandalism) or are they references to something?
Either way they are distracting and confusing, and should be removed.
-- CairoTasogare 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for information regarding legality of certain names. Are there restrictions on what names a parent can chose for his/her child in the United States? Is there anything preventing a parent from chosing their child's name to be an offensive word, or random characters or numbers?
Is this page the appropriate place for such a question to be answered?
128.208.36.151 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Fred
All names are null and void as the human being in receiving them wasn't in a position to accept said name. It was forced upon them before they could walk and talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to be largely limited to the situation in the U.S. of America.
I'm a little confused by this revert edit and the brief statement unaccompanied by any discussion. I thought that drastic revert edits like that were, by generally accepted Wikipedia policy, supposed to be discussed first.
Is your brief comment saying that you are reverting it so that the article will retain some anti-governmental slant? Which government? Is that okay here?
Having spent half of my adult life working for the U.S. government, I certainly may have a lot of sympathies for my former coworkers. I thought that I did a good job of keeping the concerns that we as governement workers have to minimally perfunctory statements of fact, but is it that you disagree? Do you see too much compassion for the front-line governement civil servants caught in the legal name vs agency policy bind?
As for the common law citations quoted in two locations, I myself noted that they had to be reinserted as I found that I can no longer recite those case names from memory like I once could. Are those two short forgotten citations sufficient to justify complete revert edit of the entirety of the article? That seems extraordinarily drastic to me.
Most of the expanded information was a high school graduation requirement back when I was of that age. Younger folks don't seem to get civics & law classes anymore. It seems reasonable to make that same information available on Wikipedia - many of them will need it at some point. Can you explain better your undiscussed removal of this article expansion and revert edit?
SpeakKindly 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
SpeakKindly 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In a series of two edits User:Jfromcanada reworded the section about common law name change in the USA. I'm concerned that two potentially different concepts are being conflated in this passage.
First, there is the concept of a common law name change. Once carried out, why wouldn't the new name be the person's true name?
Second, there is the concept of an assumed name. On possible meaning for this phrase is a name used for business, which is used in parallel with the person's "true name" (whatever that is). The assumed name is often registered with state or local authorities. An example of an assumed name would be a plumber who operates an unincorporated business under the name "Joe's Plumbing".
I think first we should sort out the real situation, then find out which of the references in the article actually support what we find, and finally rewrite the passage accordingly. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The passage about the Swedish name, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, could be supported with this link. However, it would have to be reworded to avoid mentioning anything not in the source.
The other links at Naming law in Sweden are dead. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are the alpha-numerical strings random (as in vandalism) or are they references to something?
Either way they are distracting and confusing, and should be removed.
-- CairoTasogare 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I came to this page looking for information regarding legality of certain names. Are there restrictions on what names a parent can chose for his/her child in the United States? Is there anything preventing a parent from chosing their child's name to be an offensive word, or random characters or numbers?
Is this page the appropriate place for such a question to be answered?
128.208.36.151 08:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Fred
All names are null and void as the human being in receiving them wasn't in a position to accept said name. It was forced upon them before they could walk and talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.218.106 ( talk) 19:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
This article seems to be largely limited to the situation in the U.S. of America.
I'm a little confused by this revert edit and the brief statement unaccompanied by any discussion. I thought that drastic revert edits like that were, by generally accepted Wikipedia policy, supposed to be discussed first.
Is your brief comment saying that you are reverting it so that the article will retain some anti-governmental slant? Which government? Is that okay here?
Having spent half of my adult life working for the U.S. government, I certainly may have a lot of sympathies for my former coworkers. I thought that I did a good job of keeping the concerns that we as governement workers have to minimally perfunctory statements of fact, but is it that you disagree? Do you see too much compassion for the front-line governement civil servants caught in the legal name vs agency policy bind?
As for the common law citations quoted in two locations, I myself noted that they had to be reinserted as I found that I can no longer recite those case names from memory like I once could. Are those two short forgotten citations sufficient to justify complete revert edit of the entirety of the article? That seems extraordinarily drastic to me.
Most of the expanded information was a high school graduation requirement back when I was of that age. Younger folks don't seem to get civics & law classes anymore. It seems reasonable to make that same information available on Wikipedia - many of them will need it at some point. Can you explain better your undiscussed removal of this article expansion and revert edit?
SpeakKindly 23:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
SpeakKindly 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
In a series of two edits User:Jfromcanada reworded the section about common law name change in the USA. I'm concerned that two potentially different concepts are being conflated in this passage.
First, there is the concept of a common law name change. Once carried out, why wouldn't the new name be the person's true name?
Second, there is the concept of an assumed name. On possible meaning for this phrase is a name used for business, which is used in parallel with the person's "true name" (whatever that is). The assumed name is often registered with state or local authorities. An example of an assumed name would be a plumber who operates an unincorporated business under the name "Joe's Plumbing".
I think first we should sort out the real situation, then find out which of the references in the article actually support what we find, and finally rewrite the passage accordingly. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 13:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The passage about the Swedish name, Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116, could be supported with this link. However, it would have to be reworded to avoid mentioning anything not in the source.
The other links at Naming law in Sweden are dead. Jc3s5h ( talk) 21:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Legal name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)