charles matthews wrote:
There is a notability point here: dab pages don't need to assert
notability,
because that is implicitly assumed from the existence of an article. The
MoS gets that right, in effect, in saying you don't write a short essay,
just the essentials.
There is also scope, as in a generic list, of including names
which do not
currently correspond to an article and which Will therefore display as
red-links. This is useful when there are several people of the same name,
only one of who is deemed notable enough at present to deserve an article;
the others might deserve such in future, and in the meantime provide a
simple way of showing "not this one, or even this one, but this one here".
A genealogical project is interested in people who
procreate, which is not WP's criterion at all
outside a few royal or
aristocratic or plutocratic contexts.
That depends on your criteria for interest. Those families spread more
widely than is sometimes supposed. I have just spent some while trying to
find somewhere on Wikipedia a list of famous...and maybe not so
famous...people related to Queen Elizabeth II, which I am reasonably certain
would contain several surprising names; the fact that I have not been able
to locate any such list inspires me to wonder whether we need something
which could generate it automatically.
Given the huge number of article we do have on various royal families and
dynasties, some way of organising even this information would be very
helpful; using it for other people would provide some interesting links
which might otherwise be overlooked.
HTH HAND
--
Phil
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Getting-smarter-about-surnames-t1563336.html#a4247834
Sent from the English Wikipedia forum at
Nabble.com.