Jump to content


From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is a proposal for a new Wikimedia sister project.
Status of the proposal
Technical requirements
This is a failed proposal. For other proposals to improve Wiktionary, see Category:Wiktionary.

WikiNames will be a place where the history and stats of names can be shown. The idea came about when User:GingerGeek was chatting with User:Eptalon about Name articles on the SimpleWiki. We were unsure whether the Name articles should be on Wiktionary or Wikipedia as there can be a definition of a name (Wiktionary), as well as its history and origins (Wikipedia). This project will include the definitions in several languages as well as the history, stats and links to Famous People with that name.

An article may include:

  • Language which the Name originated from
  • The definition of the name
  • Earliest records of the use of the name
  • Famous people with that name (Deceased and Alive)
  • Stats about the name e.g 132nd most popular name in America
  • Other Facts and figures, etc. relating to the name

Proposed by[edit]

User:GingerGeek whilst chatting with: User:eptalon (who suggested putting it on here).

Alternative names[edit]

WikiNouns WikiGenealogy Genealogy NameWiki

Domain names[edit]

Some of these are parked annoyingly: http://wikinames.org http://wikinouns.org http://namewiki.org http://names.wikimedia.org (if multilingual)

People interested[edit]

  1. GingerGeek (talk)
  2. Vogone talk
  3. Conny (talk)
    Nick1372 (talk) No longer interested.
  4. Miguel2706 (talk)
  5. Ecce Ralgis (háblame)
  6. Meclee (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nice idea. It could also serve as a community-curated version of listofnames.info :) --Waldir (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) I'd say it could be a great new project


  1. Oppose A wholly unnecessary to the already bloated Wikimedia family. This will be less active than wikinews within a week of its opening. Retrolord (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Great idea for WikiData The WikiData project provides the infrastructure to collect these kinds of structured datasets. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with that is that WikiData is a mostly internally-used project, and is not very friendly to the general population of people who aren't users of a Wikimedia project. Having a seperate project for it would help get more people interested in it. Nick1372 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This can all be completely implemented in Wikipedia and Wiktionary with the help of Wikidata. --MF-W 16:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - low-priority, as well as being a field where the level of sourcing and of popular "knowledge" is dangerously unreliable.
  5. For all the above reasons. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose - We already have name articles on Wikipedia. Why not just improve them? King jakob c 2 (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose useless. Kyah117 (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose How is this information not covered by corresponding Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary entries? —Justin (koavf)TCM 15:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per MF-W. --Ricordisamoa 08:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, a new project is not needed, just work on Wikipedia articles--Barcelona (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. A solution looking for a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. This is not significant enough to merit an entire project. Any reason why this can't be added to either Wikipedia or Wiktionary?? AHeneen (talk) 02:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per others.--AmaryllisGardener (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  14. All of this can be done on Wikipedia already. Pointless fork. --Piotrus (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  15. This is very important but should be covered in Wikidata or Wiktionary and not in a new project. If I misunderstand please elaborated in the proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Wikipedia is perfectly suitable for articles about names and there are many good name articles there. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  17. It's an interesting proposal. Definitely not "useless" as some others claimed. I'd be really interested in reading the content, unfortunately I doubt there would much contribution, probably not enough to justify an entire Wikimedia project. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 11:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per MF-W. Unless there's some good reason that this project can't be implemented on existing wikis (Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Wikidata primarily), this seems to be unnecessary. GorillaWarfare talk 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; everything mentioned in the proposal under "An article may include ..." can be described in a Wikipedia article, and I'd like to encourage all interested in writing about names (it's an important and interesting field!) to do so in their preferred Wikipedia language version :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Wiktionary does what this project is supposed to do already; origin language of names, meanings, and a link to WP on famous people with the name.--Seonookim (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose: Proposal already falls under the umbrella of Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Abyssal (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Such content is already welcome at Wiktionary. — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 09:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Etymology is cool, but a project dedicated to it seems not to be an effective use of resources. I would think that this would be something to integrate into Wiktionary, and perhaps Wikipedia and Wikitravel. Sven Manguard (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sven Manguard: why should information about names be on WikitravelWikivoyage? Do you mean in country articles or phrasebooks? PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Oppose I changed my mind; creating a whole new project for this is unnecessary. It should be incorporated into Wikipedia & Wiktionary. Nick1372 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Oppose maybe later... --►Cekli829 08:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose with alternative I agree with many other opposers that a new Wikimedia site would be excessive. But ISTM that a WikiProject within Wikipedia would be an excellent way to organize and coordinate the effort you're proposing. As a career-long linguist and language researcher, though, I'll second the warning in the "Oppose" entry #4 above (unsigned but by Wikimedia user Orangemike) that this is:
  26. Comment I posted a question about this subject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy in August and still haven't received a response so I assume it is inactive now. I doubt there are enough people to sustain a whole new wiki. Nwjerseyliz (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]