Talk:Ashley (name)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of the Anthroponymy WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Anthroponymy, the study of people's names. This project is dedicated to creating uniform helpful encyclopedia quality articles on the surnames, family names and nicknames of people. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.

Contents

[edit] Fake legend removal

I have removed the following paragraph:

ASHLEY IS A BADAMAN SHOWERMAN NAME! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.23.153 (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The origins of the name come from an ancient Anglo-Saxon legend wherein a lovely young woman was kidnapped by an ogre and imprisoned in an ash tree. Over the years, the tree took on the form of the woman. Her name long since forgotten, she is now only remembered as "Ashley". The fabled tree is located in Devonshire, UK.

I must say the above is very creative fiction writing, but it's complete nonsense! Clevelandkentevans 04:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Note that this is a split from Ashley. Does this serve the reader? --Wetman 04:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

  • As the person who did the split, I believe so, yes. In reality, the reader should not be exposed directly to disambiguation pages if possible; they are a necessary part of the infrastructure but should be as unobtrusive and efficient as possible. Courtland 12:39, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll have to side with Wetman on this one. This really seems dreadfully inefficient. When a disambig page starts to get long, WP's Disambiguation guidelines suggest such things as subheaders and eventually sectioning; it never recommends for such mundane situations as this, when it would be so very easy to just keep the info compact and centralized. Plus "human name" is such a friggin's silly disambiguation page name; what's wrong with just "Ashley (name)", when it comes down to it? It's not like there are many fish names or comet names to confuse this page with. But really, just having it all at Ashley is best. That's what most people who go to Ashley will be looking for anyway! The reader's interests and ease are more important than going to strange lengths to hide important info in odd places. -Silence 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that "human name" is acceptable because there are entries in the WP for fictional beings and characters. It is true there aren't many fish or comet names to confuse, but when you take into account Klingon names, Wookie names, or anything along those lines, you have enough names to where it should be specified. I don't know if the WP has a lot of fictional names, but I know it allows for it and can grow in that direction. Perhaps it should be noted whether a name is fictional or not as well, though this could be mentioned at the beginning of the article as well. -Hastor 02:38, 24 February 2006
The things is though, there is no Klingon name Ashley to confuse it with and thus saying Ashley (name) is enough. What's more, I'm sure people have named some non-human pets Ashley as well. Theshibboleth 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
What kind of TV obsessed jerks are you klingons don't exist and the artical ashley refers to it as a name of some towns so merge them.Pʰil 06:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedent

There seems to be precedent for both keeping the articles as one called Ashley (see eg. Paul or Andrew), and also for a seperate page called Ashley (name) (see eg. Matthew (name) or John (name)). I could not, however, find any precedent for the use of (human name). My opinion is to leave the pages seperate, but to rename this page to Ashley (name). Kcordina 09:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But Matthew (name) and John (name) are not listed as disambiguation pages. Added the standard {{otheruses2}} and removed {{hndis}} stuff.
--William Allen Simpson 10:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boy vs. Girl names

This is a name that is widely perceived as a girl's name but can be a boy's name. Any name where it is vice versa?? Georgia guy 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That perception depends on where you're from. In England (it's country of origin) it began as a boy's name and remains a boy's name. For some reason, Americans started using it as a girl's name and many others have followed, even a few people in England (though it's still generally considered a boy's name there). Holymolytree2 14:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protect

Should this be semiprotected to reduce the vandalism that happens in nearly any given name's article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.233.172.30 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)