This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's academic utility in a list of people who are legally mononymous even if they're not notable enough for articles. -- Resuna ( talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I can find no evidence that Elvis ever legally changed his name to a mononym, nor was he born mononymic, the only two criteria for making it onto this list. -- Cryptognome ( talk) 05:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
AFAICT references are better put in the pointed-to articles than in this - though I agree that having specific citations for the legal name would be helpful. 69.181.69.97 ( talk) 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Aren't British monarchy considered to have a single name? --aliw136 17:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
According to that page, "None of the above, except arguably the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, actually have a surname as part of their legal name", though - so the royal family are mononymous -- 24.228.88.37 ( talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no article for this person and notability has not been established. A legal document may show that the subject has changed his name to a legal mononym, but this is not necessarily sufficient to establish notability, otherwise this article would be a list of mostly Indonesian mononyms.
Reverted yet again. 71.176.51.160 ( talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
While not exactly a celebrity A-lister, Chadrick meets the requirements of being notable, being known to such a large amount of people through various works. The goal should be to keep this list as accurate as possible. As the notes to editors indicate, if anyone feels that this list is becoming too long, it should be separated into different categories (i.e. actors, writers, royalty, etc.), particularly for the sake of mononyms from Indonesia.
I believe that the following people are likely mononymous, after accounting for the extensive list of Burmese honorific titles.
However:
Note that even without a given name vs surname distinction, people can have multiple names; e.g. it's common for Spanish given names, or English middle names, to have multiple distinct subcomponents.
So… help please. Who of these are actually mononymous, and of those, who's notable enough to include? Or if the categorization just fundamentally fails for Burmese names, how should that be handled?
When responding, please indicate your expertise on this topic (eg whether you are Burmese, speak the language, or have studied Burmese naming); don't just opine if you don't know this specific area.
Likely candidates list (sorted by the non-title component first, then by the rest):
So… help please? Sai ¿? ✍ 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like ဦး is high tone meaning sir, whereas ဥ is creaky tone meaning egg or tuber.
The former entry says it's used for older men. Some of the biographies indicate U as part of a name at birth; maybe that's actually ဥ? Or it's given as an honorific by social status, not just age? Sai ¿? ✍ 20:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
See generally https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Burmese_honorific_terms Sai ¿? ✍ 20:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm a native Burmese speaker and from the country too. I'm also particularly interested in royalty and have researched past royal titles. Here are my general responses to your points followed by my opinion on your list of names:
And here is your list with my opinions. Notable people (by the criteria of do I think someone would have heard of them) marked with a ☨. Furthermore on notability, I was somewhat conservative. By the standards of other people on the list, many more would be as notable within Burma as some of the more obscure name changes
EmeraldRange ( talk) 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of Quinn is not based on reliable sources discussing them, but based on interpreting Canadian law. This is original research, and was readded after an attempted WP:BRD (removed by me). Please discuss how our policies and guidelines allow interpretation of laws regarding specific people to exist in articles. Urve ( talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I quoted a Canadian Supreme Court decision. It doesn't require particularized analysis for every such person any more than it does in the US or UK which also have common law name change.
This is not original or controversial, it's well settled. You might be unaware of it, but that's not determinative.
There is no special legal opinion for every single person who changes their name, or gets one at birth, that the name is "legal". That's just not how it works at all, and isn't how you know someone's name in the first place. (Not to mention, birth certificates, name change orders, passport records, etc are often protected by law, and you can't access them. Yet you don't doubt the legitimacy of the name of everyone you meet, asking them to prove themselves, do you? Be reasonable.) Sai ¿? ✍ 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
There's academic utility in a list of people who are legally mononymous even if they're not notable enough for articles. -- Resuna ( talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I can find no evidence that Elvis ever legally changed his name to a mononym, nor was he born mononymic, the only two criteria for making it onto this list. -- Cryptognome ( talk) 05:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
AFAICT references are better put in the pointed-to articles than in this - though I agree that having specific citations for the legal name would be helpful. 69.181.69.97 ( talk) 23:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Aren't British monarchy considered to have a single name? --aliw136 17:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
According to that page, "None of the above, except arguably the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, actually have a surname as part of their legal name", though - so the royal family are mononymous -- 24.228.88.37 ( talk) 03:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no article for this person and notability has not been established. A legal document may show that the subject has changed his name to a legal mononym, but this is not necessarily sufficient to establish notability, otherwise this article would be a list of mostly Indonesian mononyms.
Reverted yet again. 71.176.51.160 ( talk) 21:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
While not exactly a celebrity A-lister, Chadrick meets the requirements of being notable, being known to such a large amount of people through various works. The goal should be to keep this list as accurate as possible. As the notes to editors indicate, if anyone feels that this list is becoming too long, it should be separated into different categories (i.e. actors, writers, royalty, etc.), particularly for the sake of mononyms from Indonesia.
I believe that the following people are likely mononymous, after accounting for the extensive list of Burmese honorific titles.
However:
Note that even without a given name vs surname distinction, people can have multiple names; e.g. it's common for Spanish given names, or English middle names, to have multiple distinct subcomponents.
So… help please. Who of these are actually mononymous, and of those, who's notable enough to include? Or if the categorization just fundamentally fails for Burmese names, how should that be handled?
When responding, please indicate your expertise on this topic (eg whether you are Burmese, speak the language, or have studied Burmese naming); don't just opine if you don't know this specific area.
Likely candidates list (sorted by the non-title component first, then by the rest):
So… help please? Sai ¿? ✍ 19:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks like ဦး is high tone meaning sir, whereas ဥ is creaky tone meaning egg or tuber.
The former entry says it's used for older men. Some of the biographies indicate U as part of a name at birth; maybe that's actually ဥ? Or it's given as an honorific by social status, not just age? Sai ¿? ✍ 20:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
See generally https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Burmese_honorific_terms Sai ¿? ✍ 20:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm a native Burmese speaker and from the country too. I'm also particularly interested in royalty and have researched past royal titles. Here are my general responses to your points followed by my opinion on your list of names:
And here is your list with my opinions. Notable people (by the criteria of do I think someone would have heard of them) marked with a ☨. Furthermore on notability, I was somewhat conservative. By the standards of other people on the list, many more would be as notable within Burma as some of the more obscure name changes
EmeraldRange ( talk) 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
The inclusion of Quinn is not based on reliable sources discussing them, but based on interpreting Canadian law. This is original research, and was readded after an attempted WP:BRD (removed by me). Please discuss how our policies and guidelines allow interpretation of laws regarding specific people to exist in articles. Urve ( talk) 21:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I quoted a Canadian Supreme Court decision. It doesn't require particularized analysis for every such person any more than it does in the US or UK which also have common law name change.
This is not original or controversial, it's well settled. You might be unaware of it, but that's not determinative.
There is no special legal opinion for every single person who changes their name, or gets one at birth, that the name is "legal". That's just not how it works at all, and isn't how you know someone's name in the first place. (Not to mention, birth certificates, name change orders, passport records, etc are often protected by law, and you can't access them. Yet you don't doubt the legitimacy of the name of everyone you meet, asking them to prove themselves, do you? Be reasonable.) Sai ¿? ✍ 21:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)