Talk:List of most popular given names

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 17 November 2015, see discussion.
keep, February 26, 2007, see discussion.

Older comments

i thought here will islamik names but i dint meet , whyyyyyyy i wanted select or know what name is more popul. why u dint fill it??????/ selene

Pleae add a Muslim country if you have an official list. We also need Russia, China, etc. Jameswilson 01:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the value in creating these articles, but I also think there are a few issues with the titles of these pages:

The capitalization is not right. The title should be "Most popular names".

It should probably specify "given names". --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Otherwise, it could mean "family names", and in fact there is a List of most popular family names (although that is strange, since they are rarely chosen, making "popularity" maybe the wrong notion).[reply]

The title should say something about "in the US", unless there are plans to extend the list to other countries.

Also, pages like this tend to be titled "List of...", although that's probably not an absolute requirement.

Anyway, good job on making this set of pages. -- VV 23:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd like to see a source cited. Who collected this information? The US census bureau? --Delirium 22:41, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

VANDALISM: ALL MOST POPULAR FEMALE NAMES IN EUROPE ARE SET TO GABRIELLE WHICH IS DEFINITLY NOT TRUE!!!

As many people want this kept (see the October section of Talk:Most popular names/Delete), a new title should be decided. Any objections to List of most popular names in the United States? The only problem is that it makes the subpages have quite long titles as they would be things like List of most popular names in the United States in the 1890s. Angela 21:13, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

I probably don't know very much about naming pages, but how about something like Most popular American names? That would keep the links to a length of about Most popular American names in the 1920s. Anyway, I have begun to continue work on the lists and I hope to be finished within the next week or so. For those of you who are wondering, I get all of the information from the links at this site. MattSal 21:40, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good, but IMO it's best to go for something like "[[Most poular US names in the 1920s" as that's more specific; see American. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 22:56, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see your point. Anyways, I'm currently up to the 1950's and hope to finish the 1970's by the end of today. I'll save the last parts for this weekend. When I'm done, we can go about renaming and/or moving the article. MattSal 22:52, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

One thing that's occurred to me is that the lists of names could be greatly compressed; those bulleted lists of ten names could probably be made into one line each. Then, the proliferation of decade lists would not even be necessary. Of course, this retooling would require considerable effort on someone's part. -- VV 22:18, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry guys. I got lazy that one weekend. This time I will finish the pages. Then we or I can move them. Sorry. MattSal 21:44, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

This should be at something titled List of and specify that it is given names, I think, because that is what it is. List of most popular given names in the United States and List of most popular American given names are both fine, though the first is probably best because it eliminates any controversy about the meaning of American. The length of the subpages doesn't really matter -- aside from being a minor inconvenience for linking, of which there will not be much, I'd imagine. Tuf-Kat 21:51, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

I have added names in Japanese, Korean and Chinese. Can I decapitalize this to most popular names. The title sounds like a book title. -- Taku 22:11, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)~

I changed it to lower case, but I didn't change the links to it as it might be merging with list of most popular family names anyway so it would need to be changed again then. I did fix all the broken redirects caused by the moving of the 1980s etc ones though. Angela

I just found an article. List of most popular family names. This article can and should be merged with it without much trouble. And as told above, they are brilliant lists. They are not encyclopedic yet but we can work on. -- Taku 22:23, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

I think that rather than merge this and List of most popular family names names, that surnames from that list should be added here and the other list turned into first/given names. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:57, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This page is now a mishmosh. Although its title indicates that it's refering to family names, the links to the United States articles are to given names. RickK 21:30, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What I have done! This is about given names not family names. I am sorry for screwing. Right, we cannot merge this to list of most popular family names. -- Taku 23:52, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Is this a page for first-names, considering that there's another page for family names ? And why's the page made up of only Japanese names, with links to US ones ? Jay 19:12, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the US ones are just split off as they would be too long for the page. It might be worth splitting the Japanese ones off too and having this as a disambiguation page for any language. Angela . 21:02, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

Social Security began during the New Deal

From the article:

~~Every year in the United States the Social Security's Office of the Chief Actuary publishes a list of the top 10...~~

~~The US Social Security agency did not exist in the 1880s. Is there another source we are missing?~~ func (talk) 01:28, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Er, sorry. Obviously, they would have had information on people going back that far. Nevermind. func (talk) 01:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Business Naming

Does anyone have information on how to approach naming your business? I'm looking to differentiate myself. The business is managed care contracting services.

I'd suggest that if you think Wikipedia is a helpline for people too stupid to come up with a name for their own business, then you should probably just stick to flipping burgers. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.94.137.1 (talk) 10:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading

Any reason why the microprint changes some countries (ie Canada) from "Most Popular Names" to "Most Popular Baby Names"? Men in Canada aren't called Ethan, Joshua or Dylan, we're all Doug, Mike, Gord, Gordon or Gordie - I'm reluctant to change it without knowing the rational, but it certainly reads like these are the most popular names for me, unless you pull out your magnifying glass for the 2 point disclaimer. Seems a "baby names of the last year" list likely belongs somewhere else. WilyD 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, harmonise it if you want. All the lists are about baby names really. Jameswilson 02:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give an example as to how misleading the lists are: The name 'Ecrin' shown as the second most common female name in Turkey is not among the top 2472 most common names in Turkey. Ref: http://www.ismididikle.com/showisim.php?isim=ecrin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.255.145.142 (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a (probably fairly recent) list of the most popular names on the Benesse website at <http://women.benesse.ne.jp/hakase/sitemap/namae.html>.

The lists are given as fairly low-rez gifs, making it impossible to cut and paste and difficult even to read.Tweeq 15:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian names

The list of Brazilian names is probably wrong, because it has some names that have a spelling that is certainly not brazilian.

For example, "Julian" is definitely not a name common in Brazil. It could refer to "Juliano". Also "Estevan" sounds more like a Spanish name. In Brazil the most common form could be perhaps "Estevão".

Concerning female names, "Beatrice" is certainly very rare. The usual spelling would be "Beatriz".

Considering that there is no source, I believe the list there should be deleted, or replaced by some list that comes from a citable source.

--Ekalin 23:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular names by language

Would it not perhaps be useful, given that choice of name is very much tied in with language and culture (despite the homogenising effect of English), to add tables listing the most popular names within the the principal language groupings (ie. English, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, etc)? Trying to compare trends between (for example) Scotland, England, Australia, NZ, and Canada is pretty difficult with the current set-up. This is arguably of more use than only listing nations within continental groups - the most popular names in the UK have little to do with those of France, which have little to do with those of Lithuania, etc, etc.

Any thoughts?

Xdamr^talk 01:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article is completely misleading

I would think that most people who look up these lists would expect to find the most common given names (first names) of people currently living in a particular country. These lists are only the most common names given to people born in 2005 or whatever year that particular list pertains to. People born in different years vastly outnumber these newborns, and most of them tend to have different names, or names in different proportions. Therefore, I propose that the name of this article be "Most popular given names for people born in year 200x". Furthermore, there should be another article with lists of the most common given names which includes people who are older than newborns or one-year-olds (the vast majority of people alive). Backspace 01:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to wiktionary?

I don't see how this page belongs there as an appendix.. It's more than just a listing of words, and these names are related by fast-changing popularity - not anything linguistic. Eug 00:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007-02-24 Automated pywikipediabot message

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Static lists by year

During the recent AfD discussion for this article, I made the observation that it might be useful to convert the list from a single, dynamic, continually-updated list into a set of static lists by year, such as List of most popular given names in 2006, List of most popular given names in 2007, and so forth, as is already being done for the lists of the United States. This way, results from previous years would not need to be lost whenever a new publication is released. Any comments? Ayla 09:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Names

This section should be removed. There are no national statistics for names since the early 90's. While some names in the list are undisputably common (Maria, Ana, João), most of them are random names put there due to the personal observations of the person who made the list. Fábio, for instance, is not that common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.46.59 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

American Names

There is no way that this list can be right. Shaniqua is not a very popular name. Not outside the black community, anyway, which doesn't seem large enough to skew the namings that much. I think that may just be a joke. 97.84.218.95 (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. This kind of vandalism happens all the time on the list. Ayla (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fynn/Finn: German Name

Are you sure about it being the third most-given name in Germany? I'm german and I never even SAW (or heard) this name before —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.44.64.199 (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's on the official 2007 list for Germany as No. 3. People pick new and/or ridiculous names in every country, which is probably why you've never heard of it. It's a newer name used for babies. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic names in UK

Seriously isn't wikipedia better than having information sourced from a forum, especially when the person who claims the stats in from the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.142 (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed those tables. It's rubbish. Most anyone could tell you that France, Germany, and the Netherlands have larger Islamic populations because of the historical reasons; so surely their Islamic lists are more relevent (although I think that all are irrelevent) -- here's a list I found, anyway, [1]. Poor source, and I'm guessing that the motivation for including this was political. Glad that the myth that Mohammed is the most popular English name hasn't reared its head here. I had a look over the groups/nations included that aren't countries (for the Europe section), most seem justifiable. I left Switzerland - Romansch in for now, as it seems distinct, if small. I also left the cities (Warsaw, St. Petersberg) in, I'm not sure about those. Probably a good idea to get stats for all unrecognized countries. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It had been added back and I've removed it again. The source is absolutely inappropriate and I don't see a good justification for the category. -- SiobhanHansa 20:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"buenos aires" :
- [[La Nación]]. [http://www.lanacion.com.ar/Archivo/nota.asp?nota_id=871703 Santiago y Sofía, los nombres más elegidos en 2006 por los porteños]. Retrieved December 31, 2006.
- [[La Nación]]. [http://www.lanacion.com.ar/Archivo/nota.asp?nota_id=871703]. Retrieved December 31, 2006.
"spain" :
- National Statistics Institute. (n.d.). [http://www.ine.es/en/daco/daco42/mnp/nomnac_en.htm Births according to name of newborn]. Retrieved June 16, 2006.
- [http://www.eitb24.com/new/en/B24_104281/life/EUSTAT-Iker-and-Ane-most-popular-Basque-names-in-last-three/. Iker and Ane, most popular Basque names in last three years - eitb24.com]
- [http://www.ine.es Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (National Statistics Institute)]

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Indians aren't Asian anymore?

In the United States category, the most common given names has a list of Asian/Pacific Islander American names and Indian names. Is that supposed to mean Native American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.224.134 (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israel/Palestine

The keys for a few entries have been swapped back and forth between Israel and Palestine. Please can someone determine from the given reference precisely what area its data refers to? If it is for the state of Israel, let's say so in a neutral way and not mention Palestine. If the data is specifically for West Bank, East Jerusalem and/or the Gaza strip, let's explain the exact scope and form a consensus on a name for that area which is unlikely to offend any reasonable person. Can anyone interpret the Reference as a first step? Certes (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be the national statistics of Israel, split into different religious groups -- Christian, Muslim, Jewish -- and to apply to every child born in the country as a whole. Presumably that includes the West Bank, but there are also a number of Arab Muslims living in Israel proper. There is presently no country known as Palestine. There is one known as Israel. The heading should not be changed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That sounds logical to me. Shall we change the existing heading Palestine, Muslim boys to Israel...? Certes (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we maybe stop calling them "Jewish boys" and "Muslim boys" and "Christian boys" and "Druze boys?" They are infants, not holders of religious opinion. There is very little debate between three-month old "adherents" of different religions.

I know one needs a certain amount of economy of space in a table like that, but in reality they are "Children of Jewish Parents," "Children of Muslim Parents," etc.

68.148.129.210 (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Children are raised Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. and have always been considered to be the faith they are raised in or going to be raised in. They obviously make their own decisions about religion when they are older but prior to that it's appropriate to identify them by the religion of the parents,as Israel does. Do not change the headings. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian names

16:43, 23 May 2009 Bookworm857158367 (Joy's edit removes the most popular names for infants born in Croatia. If she would like to add the population stats in addition to the other list, fine, but leave the first referenced list as is.)
15:25, 23 May 2009 Joy (→Europe: User:Bookworm857158367 reverted my .hr edits together with some anon abuse, with no explanation whatsoever, so restoring)
23:56, 18 April 2009 Joy (mark the new data as pertaining to the entire population and as census 2001)
23:51, 18 April 2009 Joy (→Female names: updated Croatian entry, based on the updated reference)
23:49, 18 April 2009 Joy (→Male names: fixed the Croatian entry, the old reference was broken, it was a non-authoritative news story that only talked about popular *foreign* names; this is the official statistic with num's)

First I think it's really rude to blithely remove another referenced fact without any explanation, and insist on removal of valid information directly from the state statistics bureau in deference to an completely unauthoritative and unreferenced AFP news article. It just says "official figures show" but it doesn't say where they actually got these. I googled for it originally and couldn't find anything to properly support it. I googled again now and found more news articles like these [2] [3] and their lists both have an exact source (person from a Zagreb city bureau) and differ from the other one. In any case I fail to see how news articles are more suitable for encyclopedia references than actual relevant government agency web sites. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It looks like someone's thrown in random Indian words ("curry") and nonsense ("Ghandi's mom") for common Indian male names. I tried to find a reliable source for common male names to replace the offending text but haven't found anything so far. Could we just remove India from the list for now? --Vpdath (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The names in that list were from an article about new names that are popular with parents in India. I'd prefer not to remove that list. Vandals should be reverted. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the cited article just says "Some of the names mentioned by reporter Rituparna Bhowmik include..."; the names are not listed in any particular order, and there is nothing to indicate that these are currently the 10 most popular names in India. If you ask me, the reference isn't terribly relevant to the topic at hand. Btw, thanks to whoever reverted to the pre-vandalized version. Vpdath (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the list. "Some of the names mentioned by reporter" is in no way related to "most popular". Some of these names were included because they are intriguing or archaic, which is almost the opposite of popular. Shreevatsa (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-focus the article

The article is currently focused on what names happen to be popular right now. While this is not entirely without encyclopedic value, that value is limited. Further, it is a maintenance nightmare.

A focus on what names are popular in the overall (as opposed to newly born) population would be of considerably greater value, and I very, very strongly suggest that the page is re-focused to provide exactly that.

(Similar critiques are voiced by others in some above entries.)

Additionally, a short estimated list of the most popular names world-wide would be of greater value than the listing for any individual country. (Notably, I have seen such lists on several occasions over the years, so original research would likely be unnecessary---notwithstanding that the results would only be rough approximations.) Michael Eriksson (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should feel free to start an additional article with the information you listed, but leave this one as it is. This is a list of currently popular names and the vast majority of the listings are referenced. I won't agree to deleting information from this article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't agree either. And I don't think that there is a real list of the most popular given names worldwide. I can't believe that there is any research that collect ALL countries' most popular names in one list. So I think this list is much better. But, to tell the truth, in Hungary where I live, there are two different lists: one for the names given to the recent born babies and another one for ALL the names of the entire population. Mária is the first one considering the whole (female) population of Hungary, but Anna is the first one on the newly born babies' name-list. So maybe another list can be made about the names which are worn by the entire population in a certain country. Of the maintenance of this list: in Hungary the list is updated once a year, so the Hungarian section must be updated only once a year. Of course, I don't know anything about the other countries. --Perfectmiss (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just ten names per line

There should be just ten names per line. See for example the lines of the Faroe Islands http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_most_popular_given_names&oldid=361530566. Xqsd

Wrong:

1. Dánjal, Dávid, Jónas

2. Elias

3. Bárður, Brandur, Ísakur, Jógvan, Rói, Rókur, Silas, Tummas

4. Aron, Benjamin, Filip, Fríði, Gilli, Hákun, Jákup, Kristian, Markus, Ólavur, Pætur, Páll, Sámuel, Símun, Teitur, Tóki, Tóri

5. Andreas, Baldur, Bartal, Beinir, Bjarni, David, Eli, Gunnar, Hans Dávid, Heini, Hjalti, Hóri, Hugin, Jóan Petur, Jóhannes, Jósef, Kári, Lukas, Martin, Milan, Óli, Rani, William

Correct:

1. Dánjal, Dávid, Jónas

4. Elias

5. Bárður, Brandur, Ísakur, Jógvan, Rói, Rókur, Silas, Tummas

13. Aron, Benjamin, Filip, Fríði, Gilli, Hákun, Jákup, Kristian, Markus, Ólavur, Pætur, Páll, Sámuel, Símun, Teitur, Tóki, Tóri

30. Andreas, Baldur, Bartal, Beinir, Bjarni, David, Eli, Gunnar, Hans Dávid, Heini, Hjalti, Hóri, Hugin, Jóan Petur, Jóhannes, Jósef, Kári, Lukas, Martin, Milan, Óli, Rani, William

See http://a1763.g.akamai.net/f/1763/9180/1h/women.benesse.ne.jp/general/event/rank2009/03_02_rank_01.gif In the blue section there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8, 9, 10. A repeated name is a tie, but it occupies a slot (in the picture a line, in the article a column). When the tenth place is a tie, then more that ten names may appear. Xqsd (talk) 19:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove information from this article without further discussion. You have removed sourced information from this article. I don't agree with your listed method above. The way they are currently listed is not incorrect. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Xqsd's got the right idea, that's how rankings are supposed to go. When two things tie for a rank, the next rank takes that into account. Think of the Olympics: when two athletes tie for first, they both take the gold medal, but the silver is skipped, and the next athlete gets the bronze. So with the Faroese names above, Dánjal, Dávid, and Jónas, are all ranked first, but the next is ranked fourth, and on like that. Think about it: how can Elias be ranked second if there are three names above it? It can't. See this Swedish list to see how it's done: three names tie for 96th, the next name is ranked 99th [4].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other lists do it differently. If you have a three-way tie in second place, some rankings do list the fifth name as in third place, and so on. I prefer doing it this way because it provides more information about which names are popular and what their actual ranking is. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed some lists have different ways of listing info. I guess that is what happens when you assemble sources from different nationalities. A list isn't very useful if it isn't consistent in the way if presents raw data. I think we can easily make it consistent and make sense; we will probably need to make some sort of note explaining it. Elias is simply not the second most popular Faroese name. If we are sticking with the ten most popular names, then we should only list those particular names, or the names tied which are at least tied for tenth. This list is not about squeezing in as many names as possible.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't agree to change it. There's nothing wrong with the way it is currently listed or including more names. When the same number of names are used the same number of times, there's a tie and the way they are included is consistent throughout this list. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just mathematically wrong to make ties without skipping a place. If you don't agree with common mathematical practice then you can agree with "At most 10 names per line unless the 10th place is a tie". Why should the Faroe Islands have much more names than other countries? Xqsd (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other lists do it differently. If you have a three-way tie in second place, some rankings do list the fifth name as in third place, and so on. The fact that other lists don't know mathematics doesn't imply that WIkipedia should imitate them. When journalists make rankings, let them make mistakes. When Wikipedia makes a ranking, it should be correct. Xqsd (talk) 23:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I will not agree to remove the information. Names are listed this way because they were used the same number of times. This is one way of listing material. There is nothing wrong with the current listing. Do not remove material. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please say why you don't agree with the sentence "at most ten names per line, unless there is a tie at the 10th place". Do you see that it's absurd to have 52 names crammed together in 5 places, leaving other 5 with NA? Xqsd (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a list of the most popular names in different countries and, in some, there are ties for that position and it's not accurate to list only 10 names. I believe in including accurate information. The list is cited and this is one method of listing information. Don't remove information again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not matter of opinion how rankings should be made. Anyway, what's wrong with "at most ten names per line, unless there is a tie at the 10th place"? And please explain why a line with 52 names has five places with NA. Couldn't it be because 52 is much more that enough? Xqsd (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the cut-off is ten, so lets stick to that. Lets stay consistent. We can't just make up reasons to add more in one and less in the other. The top ten, is the top ten; it's not the top ten in one country and the the top twenty-seven in another.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not agree to that because there are ties for various positions and it isn't always going to be just 10 names. The top 10 names doesn't necessarily mean 10 names. If two names were both used 300 times, they are both going to be in 2nd position, etc. It is possible to rank them in the way that they are currently ranked in this article. Limiting it to 10 names only is reducing the amount of information available. The list is cited. I won't agree to removing cited information. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bookworm857158367, the list is inconsistent because it uses different ranking systems. We should fix that if we can. The list loses its value when it isn't consistent in how it presents the info. So, it is not a good thing to keep the list the same. Do you understand that? It is an important point. Now look at the Faroe reference; it doesn't even rank the names, it just gives the raw numbers. The names and numbers are cited, but the system of ranking them isn't. Understand what I mean; do you understand what is actually "cited"? Some of the refs do rank names in the way you like (1-22-3); others do it the way Xqsd and I have described (1-22-4); and others are like the Faroe list, just list the data. So what do we do? One thing we shouldn't do is dig our heals into the ground and refuse to cooperate with others. What we could do is analyse all the references used, and and so what system most of them follow. Maybe different kinds of sources rank things differently (for example official/government/census vs media references).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I still think the list is appropriate the way it is, for the reasons I gave above. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There weren't more than five places because it's a very small population. The names in last position were probably used twice each. But again, do not remove cited information from this article. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is meant to list the ten most popular names in each country, then it should list the ten most popular names. For the Faroes you have probably named the first names of everyone born on the islands in a particular year! Oh and what is all the "I won't agree to do this" thing here - no one owns the page, so if the consensus is that the system used in compiling the data should change, then it should change. 109.94.137.1 (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian list

Note: the edit/content in question. Older discussion is above at #Vandalism.

(See prior discussion above.) I've been repeatedly removing this absurd list of names (and already mentioned it once above on this talk page), giving a reason in the edit summary each time, and User:Bookworm857158367, who seems to have some WP:OWNership issues, keeps re-adding them with no valid reason. Edit-warring without discussion (and without any valid reasons) is not the way to improve Wikipedia. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate my reasons, although I am annoyed at having to do so:

The given list is not supported by the citation — it's a different list.
The given citation is someone's blog, not a reliable source. I can put up my own different list of names on my blog, if you think that makes it "cited material".
The blog is reporting (without citation) some names mentioned by some "reporter" somewhere else
It is not all the names mentioned by the reporter
There is no claim made that these are the most popular rising names
These names are mentioned precisely because they are intriguing, archaic, or eye-catching, which is the opposite of "most popular".

Any single one of these reasons alone would disqualify having it in the article. That it is repeatedly reinserted despite all these reasons makes me wonder about the sanity of the process here. Shreevatsa (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shreevatsa. This is completely erroneous content. The article that the blog is deriving utterly original research from, is at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLAU55319320071205 That article does not mention popularity, or give a list, or any kind of order. The data from the blog does not belong here, at all. Bookworm, please check your work better, especially when reverting multiple times. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list that Shreevatsa has added is not particularly accurate in the case of the girls. Maya and Tara are both names that have several other language origins and in all likelihood are not used primarily for girls of Indian descent in the United States. I avoided using that particular reference for that reason and used the article about names actually used in India. If you can find a list of names that are commonly used in India that should be substituted for both but the original reference would be preferable as a citation because it actually deals with names used for infants in India. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove that if you like. I find it hard to believe your preference for the earlier stuff, which I've already shown is rubbish and does not belong in the article. Do you seriously think that having any random nonsense is preferable to having nothing at all? Shreevatsa (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice to have India represented and have it reflect the current naming practices in the country. This article should ideally represent as many regions in the world as possible. I wish India did have official statistics but I wasn't able to find any. Actually, this site is probably a better representation than either of the above even if it's completely unofficial and anectdotal: http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/penpals/stats.php3?Pays=IND If you know of official stats somewhere in India, I wish you would add them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and share the sentiment. I wish there were some better sources, and as soon as we find something credible, we can add it, but not until then. (Maybe with the next census underway… though I doubt it.) I'll continue to look for official statistics, though experience tells me they're unlikely to exist. :-( In the meanwhile, let's please avoid adding clearly erroneous content. Even the penpal stats you found are better than the blog used earlier (though it has some bias toward names from urban, educated classes, and comes from a very small sample size: 7 "Rhea"s out of 276 puts the name in 3rd place, but somehow I doubt it's really in the top 10.). Shreevatsa (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since they speak English, it probably is representative of more urban classes but the name of every Indian student I've met in the U.S. is somewhere on that list. I can believe Raj is the most popular name for young males in India and Priya or Shruti would be very popular girls' names. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanisation of Korean names

I hate to nit pick, but the Korean names in the article use inconsistent semi-phonetic Romanisation.Perhaps accurate in terms of what the children are likely to use, perhaps it is better to use the "official"/recommended Romanisation. Below are the Revised Romanisation versions of the names.

Boys

Min-jun
Ji-hu
Ji-hun
Jun-seo
Hyeon-u
Ye-jun
Geon-u
Hyeon-jun
Min-jae
U-jin

Girls

Seo-yeon
Min-seo
Seo-hyeon
Ji-u
Seo-yun
Ji-min
Su-bin
Ha-eun
Ye-eun
Yun-seo

Cashie (talk) 05:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The spellings given are those used in the source. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijani names in Asia but not Armenia/Georgia?

Why Azerbaijani names in Asia list, while Armenia and Georgia in Europe?--NovaSkola (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

France (most popular Arabic names used by French Muslims, 2006)

I think this is not where it should be. But regardless of whether it is consistent or not to put this statistic, the statistic is in itself not right. I checked the source and it is an amateur website. There is tons of reasons why this statistic is impossible to get such as the fact that France's government does not collect statistic on minorities but also because how do you tell if someone is Muslim or not just by looking at records. I know a lot of French Muslims who have names like Julien, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon1794 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your attempt to remove these stats, which are cited and which provides information about a demographic group within the country. The names on the list are all of Arab origin and it appears to be compiled based on the official list. In any event, see what other people say before you attempt to revert it again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way too scrappy

The whole list is very scrappy. Some countries seem to have entries for multiple ethnic groupings, while others aren't included at all. Would it not be more appropriate to have a single entry for each country based on the overall most popular names for girls and boys, and then, if a country has multiple other sources available, either include these in seperate tables at the end of this article, or split them out into individual country lists? 109.94.137.1 (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall?

By having the statistics, shouldn't be hard for a bot to perhaps unify the list... When you search for "List of most popular given names" you want the most popular, period. Not the most popular on some arbitrarily (and not undisputed) defined regions (e.g. continents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent#Number_of_continents)... Sure, this list (as is) may be useful for some, but it's not what the title suggests. Also, there are different lists in the 'Category: Lists of popular names' for different regions, so when I come at the article that doesn't specify regions, I'm looking for the overall list. Just my humble opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.123.131.76 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to make the exact same statement. 100 % agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.142.126.223 (talk) 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed link for Evangelos name under Greek names

The name Evangelos under the Greek famous names linked to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vangelis

which is an article about a certain "Evangelos Odysseas Papathanassio" which does not say anything about the name. Sadly, there is no disambiguation or given name for "Evangelos" on wikipedia, despite there being quite a few articles for people named Evangelos. The best I could do is have it link to the Vangelis disambiguation page, because at least there it showed a little about the name and not a link to a single person.75.73.114.111 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

infographic?

Hi, I’m Andrew Clark and I work at the Office for National Statistics in the UK.

We publish lots of infographics and I wonder if these ones would be of interest for List_of_most_popular_given_names

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baby_Names_Top_100_in_England_and_Wales,_2012.png

FYI, the full gallery, updated weekly, is here <https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_created_by_the_Office_for_National_Statistics>

All the best

Andrew Clark (smanders1982) 10 Dec 2013

Smanders1982 (talk) 14:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial names

I removed unofficial names, as it is speculation and rumours. The data needs to have source.--Xoncha (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, you have also removed sourced information. Do not make such massive editing changes without discussing it on the talk page first. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Data about Algeria problematic

I am quite sure that the data that is listed for Algeria is the result of a misunderstanding:

The source given goes to the Spanish statistics office, which publishes data tables like in this Excel sheet where one can find data, among other, about Algerians living in Spain, not data about people in Algeria.

I tried to find genuine data about Algeria itself and failed. The last census was 2008, not 2010, and the Algerian statistics office does not seem to publish data about given names resulting from this census.

I propose to simply delete the Algeria data.

The data given for Mali and probably for Equatorial Guinea as well seem to come from the same Spanish source and thus seem invalid in the same way to me. Here I did not yet try to find alternative sources about those countries, however. Rbrunner7 (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, clarify that it refers to the names of Algerians living in Spain, etc. That's interesting data too. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the data is of some interest, especially given the dearth of info about African names in general. But on the other hand, it's very, very narrow data, unlike any other on the page as far as I can see, and probably easy to misunderstand even if annotated with some additional explanation. Let's see whether any others chime in with an opinion. Rbrunner7 (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have originally included it because of the lack of information on African names. Most countries in Africa don't seem to keep statistics. My guess is that this is still a pretty good cross-section of names that are actually used in Algeria, if the immigrants are a cross-section of the population. I think we could use parenthesis to clarify. For instance: Spain (Algerians living in Spain, year) or Spain (Equatorial Guineans living in Spain, year). --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of most popular given names. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100116183924/http://www.lobservateurduvalenciennois.fr:80/actualite/Valenciennes:-Le-palmares-des-prenoms-donnes-en-2009-1727.html to http://www.lobservateurduvalenciennois.fr/actualite/Valenciennes:-Le-palmares-des-prenoms-donnes-en-2009-1727.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of most popular given names. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Links to different name articles

There is an ongoing disagreement here over whether a particular name should link to the article on the English form of the name or to the article on the specific name. I think it would make more sense to have one main article on a name that lists all the varizants instead of multiple articles on every single foreign variant. Does anyone else care to weigh in? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with doing it like that is that there are tons of people named by the different variations. Only by looking at two mildly different variations like "Francisco" and "Francesco" we see that there are tons of people who are listed that would totaly bloat a single article if they were to be merged. I also disagree with redirecting it to the english version which is just one of many variations of the original Franciscus, it would be a great sign of Anglocentrism.★Trekker (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English language Wikipedia. Of course it should be Anglocentric. Name articles also should not list every single person called by that name. That is not what an article on the name is about. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is also read by a large portion of the population. It's the largest and main wikipedia in the world and should strive to be an encyclopedia written in english, not about or centered around english things and concepts.

Since when is that not what name articles are for? That's certainly what they are used for 99% of the time and what they are useful for. I have a hard time believing that is going to change anythime.★Trekker (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, the name articles were simply about the name -- language of origin, history of usage, variants, popularity in various countries, etc. A disambiguation page, I.e. Mary or John, should list the notable people with the name and should ALSO list the link to the article on the name itself. An English Wikipedia should favor English names. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that we should favor english names for the exact reason I just gave.

That's fine about the names and all but then we end up with about 10.000 different name articles with very little content and about 20.000 articles to fix it all in. And what about when names already have disambiguation articles that list other things by that name, like Francis for example? As for that I still don't agree with merging any of them, it would end up very confused and cluttered.★Trekker (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of most popular given names. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130327093449/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/684/li1.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/684/li1.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rrq.gouv.qc.ca/Interactif/PR2I121_Prenoms/PR2I121_Prenoms/PR2SPrenoms_01.aspx
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/1990surnames/dist.male.first
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/data/1990surnames/dist.female.first
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/inside.asp?xfile=%2Fdata%2Fnationgeneral%2F2015%2FApril%2Fnationgeneral_April26.xml&section=nationgeneral
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023055343/http://kameleon.ba/site/najcesca-dodjeljivana-imena-novorodene-djece-u-2012-godini/ to http://kameleon.ba/site/najcesca-dodjeljivana-imena-novorodene-djece-u-2012-godini/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120806145250/http://www.vrk.fi/default.aspx?id=279 to http://www.vrk.fi/default.aspx?id=279

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of most popular given names. 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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iran entry "AbulFazl"

Can someone check that? It links to Abbas ibn Ali with the link name AbulFazl. That doesn't seem to make sense, but has been in the article for months. --mfb (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

China section

China section looks weird, with the list of common names all fit in one cell for place #1, which breaks the table, and doesn't make any sense. I removed cell borders there, and it looked much better. But then it was reverted by Bookworm857158367. Is it some automatic revert by the bot? Clearly if a person looked at it, they would see that it was better after my edit. Stansult (talk) 09:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia is considered part of West Asia.

I don't know why people keep changing the names. Armenia is considered part of West Asia. I'm not sure about the consensus behind other countries like Georgia or Cyprus, but the Wikipedia article for Armenia, backed up by sources clearly states this: "Located in Western Asia". The page for their own ethnic group even states: Armenians are an ethnic group native to the Armenian Highlands of Western Asia. I know they're sometimes described as being a "transcontinental" country (?), but still. They're generally considered part of (West) Asia or even the Middle East. They're even included in the various lists pertaining to Asian countries. Perhaps we could add a color code to signify that a certain country is technically transcontinental, but generally considered to be part of one continent, like how Russia is technically mostly in Asia, but most people would think of them as being part of Eastern Europe? IDK. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change some vowels Iwouldlikepie (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Could I edit this page?[reply]

Could I change this page? Iwouldlikepie (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[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. melecie t 01:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Global absolute ranking, not just per country/continent/whatever

thenks 185.228.230.8 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official list that gives the most popular names worldwide. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]