Talk:Eponym

List

I plan to move the list of eponyms to a new article where it can be made into categories. See the "Eponyms" section in the Lists of etymologies for an existing category-based listing. The list moved from this page could become the default alphabetically ordered list. Jay 17:48, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Done. Was waiting for Wikipedia to complain about the 32 KB limit. Jay 09:58, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Medical

I added an Internet link to a very useful site on medical eponyms (i.e. what did Dr James Parkinson do for a living apart from describing the hypokinetic-rigid syndrome named after him) Jfdwolff 10:53, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move

some discussions have been moved over to talk:list of eponyms

Eponymic vs. Eponymous

Are eponymic and eponymous synonyms? The article says to use "eponymic" as an adjective to describe the relationship of an object to its eponym, but I frequently use "eponymous". Am I wrong? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:19, Jun 11, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, they are synonyms. Not sure if there is the British English/American English divide here though. Jay 08:04, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Misunderstood usage?

"Some books, films, and TV shows are eponymous with their principal character(s): Beavis and Butt-head and Daria, for example." "Are eponymous with" is an ungainly construction that shows its unfamiliarity with the term. Isn't the better usage that these books have eponymous heroes? This text (I haven't moved it from the article) seems oblivious to the passage that directly precedes it. --Wetman 16:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, "eponymous" is an adjective that applies to the person, not to the named item. AxelBoldt 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect definition?

I'm not sure the definition of eponym is correct. MSN Encarta lists it as being the person named after or the thing being named.

http://ca.encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861608906/eponym.html

The Oxford English Dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica both agree with us that an eponym is the person, not the named thing. (Webster and WordNet both allow the named thing to be called an eponym as well.)

It makes more sense if the eponym is the "named thing" because this is the way other -nym words are used. Examples: NATO is an acronym formed from North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is not the acronym. George Orwell is a pseudonym, the author's real name Eric Arthur Blair is not the pseudonym. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.73.3.203 (talk) 11:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I believe our definition is too narrow in that it requires the name of the person to be synonymous with the name of the item. With that strict definition, there are few eponyms. For instance, Alexander the Great would not qualify as an eponym of Alexandria, and neither would Avogadro be an eponym of Avogadro's constant. I think the definition given at list of eponyms is better. AxelBoldt 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The eponym must be the name (its the name not the thing, but that is a subtle distinction). "Plimsoll" is the eponym (referencing a show), the person Samuel Plimsoll is an eponymist. I have never seen "eponym" used in this way, and indeed I have a dictionary of eponymists (sic) at home to which I refer frequently. To use the term for both the originator and the thing named after them seems exceptionally clumsy. OED and EB are not law, they describe usage. Clearly usage is muddled (as witnessed by this page) but can we not strive in the rest of the wikipedia to use eponym and eponymist as distinct terms and note the ditinctions here? Francis Davey 21:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Some google searching leaves me none the wiser as to "the truth". In particular the definition of the eponym as the eponymist seems identical everywhere, which may be an original mistake (yes they occurred, see old OED for aardvark). However "eponym archon" on this page appears to beg the question. Archons of Athens has the usage archon eponymous, can we not say "eponymous archon" since this (a) does not beg the question on usage; and (b) is a better borrowing from the Greek? I will change if no-one minds. Francis Davey 22:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't find anything like "eponym" when I do a search for epon- at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/resolveform. Are the quoted etymologies even vaguely right? Eponomazo just means to call something by a name. Francis Davey 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I went to dictionary.com and there are both examples of eponymous being an adjective to describe the thing with the original name and the thing being named. I'm so confused --Gbleem 13:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

what I find especially awesome about this completely crappy page is that it includes a link to wiktionary, which gives the following definitions:

• The name of a real or fictitious person that has, or is thought to have, given rise to the name of a particular item.

• A word formed from a real or fictive person’s name.

but the page leads off with it's own completely wonky definition. Would it help to fix the first sentence? 146.115.123.180 (talk) 01:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixing things always helps... You could start by telling us what you think is "wonky", since both the definitions you mention are included? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that, as I explained below, the original meaning of "eponym" is an ancient Greek hero (often an after-the-fact invention, an etiological myth) who is supposedly the origin of the name of a people (the Dorians being allegedly named after a certain Dorus, the Aeolians after Aeolus, etc.), the eponym is, properly speaking, the person. For example, Claude Émile Jean-Baptiste Litre is the (equally fictitious) eponym of the litre, Isaac Newton is the (real) eponym of the unit newton, Albert Einstein is the eponym of the chemical element einsteinium and various other entities. For the same reason, just as you say "eponymous ancestor", you say "eponymous owner". See also wikt:eponym and wikt:eponymous: The Greek word from which "eponym" and "eponymous" derive ends in -os and is a (substantivised) masculine adjective ("guy who has a significant name"), not a neutral noun ending in -a ("significant name") or a (substantivised) neutral adjective in -on ("significantly named thing"). If you keep the Latinised Greek ending, it is clear that eponymus can only refer to a person, like anonymus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

pronunciation

Could some one please add a useful pronunciation guide? I can find them online but they are confusing. How is this pronounced? hdstubbs

Definition

It seems to me that eponym is the name of a person, not the person itself. Since the name is then shared by the eponymous person and the thing named after him, eponym can also be used for the thing named after that person. Zwart 00:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say eponym, where the same word is used, clearly refers to the *name* of the thing, but not to the thing itself. Hence eponymous should be used only for the giver of the name, not the recipient. The word is widely used in what I consider to be the wrong way, however - there has to come a point where usage defines meaning. -- Ian Dalziel 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was changing planes at Heathrow I noticed the fuel trucks said inflamable. Most people would consider inflamable to mean the opposite of flamable. The question may be at what point do we switch from one definition to the other or can we have eponymous mean both? What about a person named after the city of Georgia. --Gbleem 13:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph seems to have a backwards definition:

One who is referred to as eponymous is someone who gives his or her name to something, e.g. Julian, the eponymous owner of the famous restaurant Julian's Castle.

This suggests that the owner's name was derived from that of the restaurant. Finwailin (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't! Exactly the opposite - calling the *restaurant* eponymous suggests that, in the strictest sense of the word. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The restaurant on its own is not eponymous. Nor is the owner. The owner's name is eponymous, as is the name of the restaurant, because the owner and the restaurant are eponymous with each other. Therefore they are both eponymous - they are eponymous with each other, with an implied directionality (from the owner to the restaurant). To say that one is eponymous without explicit or implied mention of the other makes no sense. It is like saying, "water is superior". Without an explicit or implied other thing to be superior over, it has little meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.2 (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed phrase

I took out, "chanceries, especially at the court of a prince aspiring pivotal importance to his entire state's society, and was copied by minor dignitaries, even prelates", and substituted, "courts". The use of chancery here does not match the Wiktionary definition, and b/c this is too much detail for an article on names, not political movements. Maybe the whole parethetical comment should be removed, too. Mdotley 16:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Edited "administration" eponyms

I've added a few examples to the governmental/administrative eponym list; as originally written, it sounded like the Americans are the only ones in the English-speaking world to use eponyms in this way. If anybody knows some good examples from other English-speaking countries.... --Charlene 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Must be American. Bloombergused it for Bernard Madoff. Byeboer (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a simple definition?

I read the whole page, I read this whole talk page, and I still don't quite understand what an eponym is. Could someone explain it, or give an example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.111.167.39 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

A person's name which has also been given (transferred) to something else. "Bistro George", the name of an eatery started by George Godwin (fictitious example) -- the eponym is the name "George". The person and the eatery are each "eponymous with" the other. --204.97.183.31 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

1. a person, real or imaginary, from whom something, as a tribe, nation, or place, takes or is said to take its name: Brut, the supposed grandson of Aeneas, is the eponym of the Britons.

2. a word based on or derived from a person's name.

IE: both the person and the word are eponyms. the thing named is not. Sahuagin (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fancy Word

It's a fancy word for people who want to seem more intelligent than they actually are as evidenced by the (too) many uses of the word in Wikipedia articles, many of which are incorrect. For example: "Dickie Roberts is an eponymous former child star on a TV sitcom " from the Wikipedia article on the movie Dickie Roberts Former Child Star. As written, this doesn't make much sense. Or how about this? Previously in the Wikipedia article about The Last Picture show this statement was made: "...Sam the Lion, owner of the eponymous movie theater..." The movie theater in the film was not named The Last Picture Show, so how could it be eponymous? When the word eponymous is correct, how about using "named after" or "named for" instead? Why use a fify cent word when a nickel word will do? Isn't the point of an encyclopedic article supposed to be to communicate clearly with the reader rather than confuse and aleinate them by using big words and using them incorrectly. I'm starting a petition to outlaw the use of the word eponymous in every Wikipedia article as well as outlawing the use of Family Guy episodes in the trivia section of every Wikipedia article. Sign below :-)

Anonymous Wikipedia user here who figured there had to be something in the Talk section of "eponym" about this. What is this craziness? Every other article on Wikipedia now seems to have some variant of this word in it. Even if it's used correctly, it often seems forced. Therefore, I second your motion to eliminate it from Wiki entries. --205.129.12.253 17:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this. I see it used all over wikipedia, even in cases where a person's name is not used. "It's a fancy word for people who want to seem more intelligent than they actually are as evidenced by the (too) many uses of the word in Wikipedia articles, many of which are incorrect." is exactly what I have been thinking about this. Sahuagin (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree whole heatedly. It's a concise term that describes a common relationship. "Why use a fify cent word when a nickel word will do?" Because a fifty cent word fits better :p --76.78.120.181 (talk) 05:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Criminal Overuse

This is possibly the most overused word anywhere in the whole of Wikipedia. Tomwhite56 (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

why no clothing category?

Given how many articles of clothing are named after the people (both real and fictitious) who popularised them, I'm surprised that there isn't a category/link on this page for items such as Wellington boots, Fedoras, Daisy Dukes, Cardigans, &c. I'd do it myself but I don't know how 165.91.64.136 (talk)RKH —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC).

Discussion

One thing I dont get is my spelling book says An Eponym is a word that comes from someones name. For Example, the leotard was named after Jules Leotard, a trapeze artist. Write the content word that was formed by adding the old latin term for "ten" to part of Alexander Graham Bell's name. I really needed help. I came to Wikipedia and I found what I needed. Now I know that the answer to the guestion is Decibel. Wikipedia doesn't give you the answer but helps you out alot more than any other website I have been. I appreciate all the help Wikipedia. Thanks, Wikipedia Lover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.187.123.112 (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eponym means either the thing OR the person it is named after

Clearly some people are keen to show their erudition by emphasising the 'person' definition, or even, as at present in this article, eliminating the 'thing' definition altogether.

Well, language evolves, and in the real world 'eponym' is mostly used to mean the thing named. Increasingly rarely, it can still mean the person it is named after or for.

Collins dictionary (which reliably balances contemporary and accepted usage) gives both definitions, of course, but puts the 'thing' ahead of the 'person'.

So please will anyone who objects to our including both meanings in the opening sentences of this article discuss it here, to avoid a silly edit war when I amend the entry in a short while. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly object to what you have just written. "Eponym" means neither the person nor the thing, it means the word. Which, being the same word in each case, applies to either. The argument is about "eponymous", which can, being pedantic, only be applied to the person. It is freely used for either in modern usage, though, and the lead clearly states as much. So, amend away - and I hope there won't be a "silly edit war" if I copyedit what you've written. :-) Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ian - yes, 'eponym' is the name of the thing or person. Sorry if I was lazy in my presentation. (Though the two words may not be exactly the same, eg. Mesmer and mesmerise.) And you recognise that modern usage is broader than the pedantic (ie. outdated) meaning. But I will adapt the article lead to say more clearly that there are two main meanings, adding perhaps that 'eponymous' still more often refers to the person than does 'eponym'. Earthlyreason (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thatcherism as a North American eponym?

Thatcherism appears under North American examples. Last time I checked, Thatcher was from the UK. Is this a section of history I've neglected or a logical error in the article? 220.233.199.72 (talk) 04:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Self-titled

The article says "In contemporary English, the term eponymous is often used to mean self-titled." There is no definition of "self-titled". This is not good! I think "self-titled" means "named after oneself." That seems to be just a special case of the normal definition, so do we need a special statement about "self-titling"? I will put in a definition of "self-titled" and see what happens. Zaslav (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Self-titled music albums

How do we know that self titled Albums are really the name of the band? For example Led Zeppelin I, just has Led Zeppelin on the title, It only says that name once. How do we know its saying the title of the album is Led Zeppelin and not having that as the name of the Band? Led Zeppelin IV didn't say anything and it's Untitled. Almost no bands have the name of the band on the album twice. So either the band or the album isn't getting credit. Or the album isn't really self titled. --24.94.251.190 (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

agreed. occasionally an album is self titled, but the great majority of albums we think of as eponymous are actually untitled. an excellent illustration of this common confusion is peter gabriel`s 1st 4 lps. they are not all titled "peter gabriel", they are untitled, like issues of a magazine, according to gabriel himself. Fp cassini (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Many other artists and bands have also served as eponyms of albums or singles, usually as their debut or second release." Really? I don`t think so. Guess I`ll check back here in a year, and probably not feel rude deleting "or second" then. Fp cassini (talk) 20:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Biblical Eponyms

I am surprised that the article does not include a section on, or a least a list of eponyms in the Bible - there must be hundreds of them. The names of most of the peoples, nations, and countries of the Hebrew Scripture are treated as deriving from some eponymous ancestor. Many, if not all, are commonly regarded by Biblical scholars as etiological myths but they would still seem count as eponyms. I could start a list, but I am just afraid that I may be missing the overall point of the article since this category seems to me like such an obvious desideratum. Stephendcole (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The same phenomenon is also found in ancient Europe, perhaps all over the ancient world. In fact, "eponymous ancestor/founder/heros" is the original meaning of "eponym", and derives from Ancient Greek culture, as far as I'm aware. German Wikipedia has an article de:Eponymer Heros, but English Wikipedia doesn't have anything comparable – I can't find a mention of the general phenomenon, except in articles about individual eponyms such as Dorus, Aeolus, Romulus, etc. What we do have is Greek hero cult, but it does not mention anything about eponyms. Eponymous ancestor merely redirects to Myth of origins, which does not mention the term, either. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Common nouns with eponymous origins

The article seems to focus on eponyms which are capitalized, reflecting a continuing recognition of their eponymous origins. I am not seeing an explanation of eponyms whose roots are no longer obvious and which therefore have also lost their capitalization. I am thinking of such words as sandwich, bloomers, and silhouette, to give typical examples. Certainly the degree to which a word is recognized as eponymous will vary from person to person, but as I am suggesting here, there is at least a rough distinction between eponymous words that are capitalized and those that are not (allowing, or course, for a middle catagory where the orthography is not consistent.) Stephendcole (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Totally agreed. Other examples include diesel fuel (aka diesel), babbitt metal (aka babbitt), Parkinson disease but parkinsonian, Darwin but darwinian, etc. The latter two are examples of the class you mentioned where the orthography is not consistent [among dictionaries let alone in natural language]. This topic is not well enough covered yet. Would be good to develop that coverage further. — ¾-10 17:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or dictionary?

I'm not sure to what degree this article meets the criteria for an encyclopedic rather than a dictionary article. Perhaps better for Wiktionary? Dcattell (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Transwikiing to Wiktionary would never work, because the "Orthographic conventions" section alone contains encyclopedic information about the variations of how eponyms are styled, and why, that a dictionary will never cover—especially Wiktionary, which purges content that even a good dictionary like American Heritage would try to retain. — ¾-10 00:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

PS—Not that this article is alone on that. There are other encyclopedia articles on kinds of words—such as acronyms, retronyms, surnames, and lexical categories such as noun, verb, adjective, or article (grammar)—that are inherently encyclopedic in nature, and will always remain in a comprehensive encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Just wanted to clarify that it doesn't apply only to eponyms in particular. — ¾-10 00:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good observation, at least if I correctly understand the above: certain articles on the same title should separately coexist on Wiktionary and Wikipedia, with the first having dictionary content and the second having encyclopedic content. And, in the case of Eponym, I am willing to be convinced. The articles under the titles acronym, surname, noun, verb, adjective seem to be fairly well-referenced encyclopedic articles, and of all off them Eponym is the only one which solely cites dictionary definitions as references. It should be a fine article, with a bit more work. Dcattell (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

To that end, I added some citations of some well known style guides, the AMA Manual of Style and The Chicago Manual of Style. The good thing about style guides is that they talk about the editorial logic and fashions behind the styling choices (which in some cases change over the decades), whereas dictionaries usually just show the results of the choices without discussing the choice-making process much (although dictionary front matters sometimes offer a glimpse). — ¾-10 00:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of "eponymous"

I have an insight that the word "eponymous" is frequently misused in this Wikipedia. It may be used in the reverse sense, written in the place of "homonymous" (a less known word), or just instead of stating that two names are the same in plain English language. Look at the Gorilla article:

“ Gorillas comprise the eponymous genus Gorilla… ”

Could we say that the genus is "a person or thing, whether real or fictitious, after which gorillas are named"? No, exactly the opposite: the genus Gorilla is named after gorillas. Could I just drop the word, or some replacement is desirable? Note that my English is not native, so I really need this advice. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the word can be safely dropped without loss of information. (Sorry, didn't see this question earlier.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

More of the same

Please note the following from oxforddictionaries.com which is linked to from the OED entry for eponymous (at least the version I can access from the Boston Public LIbrary website - I think that's 2nd ed), and which the OED main entry indicates is a 'current' definition:

---

eponymous Pronunciation: /ɪˈpɒnɪməs/

Definition of eponymous

adjective

(of a person) giving their name to something: the eponymous hero of the novel

(of a thing) named after a particular person or group: their eponymous debut LP

Derivatives

eponymously

adverb

---

Note in particular that 'eponymous' can refer either to the person for whom something is named, or the 'something' that is named for the person. As an example: the Wikipedia page, 'List of eponymous laws'.

I think the eponym entry could be simplified if this dual meaning were presented. Possibly by some sort of warning about 'alternate' or 'current' usage? This alternate usage is in fact often encountered, and not to mention it in the article seems to increase rather than lessen confusion.

Ken M Quirici 16:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talk • contribs)

Yes. The "Eponym" article has a serious flaw, particularly in regard to the misunderstanding of or the confusing of the difference between /eponym/ and /eponymous/: "eponymous" should be defined, in relationship to "eponym" (perhaps somewhat along the lines of the "Synonym" article). The best fix would be a general re-write, with appropriate references. Dcattell (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that the article is flawed as of this writing. The reason is that it has been guarded by prescriptivists who don't know that they're prescriptive—because they're unaware of the spectrum on which prescriptivism and descriptivism coexist and interact in good usage advice. You can look up "eponym" in most good, respected dictionaries and find *both* senses entered. For example, in both American Heritage and Merriam-Webster Collegiate. The only appropriate thing for this Wikipedia article to do is to set out both senses in the lede, and mention that some people prescribe that only one of them is acceptable. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Eponymous Subjectivity Issue

It would appear that the introductory explanation of "eponymous" is rather opinionated and not derived from any particular reference, at least not one which is cited. Specifically, The section being referred to is the following:

"However, good usage advice for careful writers is that they should avoid overuse of these senses, because their overuse annoys many readers. It is long- and well-established usage to call terms such as "Down syndrome" or "DeBakey needle holder" eponyms; but careful usage includes using "self-titled" rather than "eponymous" when describing self-titled music albums, and refraining from calling businesses named after their owners (such as "Pat's Diner") "eponymous" (such businesses are ubiquitous, but the use of the word "eponymous" is better left non-ubiquitous)."

This is loaded with subjective phrases that do not enhance the understanding of the word.

>>Who determined that this was 'good' advice? >>How was it divined that this 'annoys many readers'? >>Where is the reference for 'careful usage includes using "self-titled" rather than "eponymous" when describing self-titled music albums, and refraining from calling businesses named after their owners (such as "Pat's Diner") "eponymous"'? >>'the use of the word "eponymous" is better left non-ubiquitous' -- again, hello subjectivity and no citation to corroborate why it is 'better' left this way.

It was very kind to contribute to the article. It was also gracious to attempt to provide more information on the usage, but perhaps this portion should be revised to be more objective, well referenced, or both.

References

Eponym question

I have two questions involving eponyms relevant to this article. Firstly, in works of fiction where the title of the novel, etc is named after the character (e.g Jane Eyre), is it proper usage to call them an 'eponymous character'? Secondly, in situations where the name of something is derived from someone's status or title (e.g. The Giant's causeway being named after the giant Fionn mac Cumhaill), not specifically their name, does that count as an eponym? 60.242.210.126 (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Rewriting Definitions in Lede

The second definition previously given in the article, "name-recipient", was absurd, and was not supported by the reference given. Everything, if there's a word for it, is a "name-recipient". An eponym is a person whose name is given to some place or thing, or it is the name itself. It is not the place or thing so named. I have accordingly rewritten the lede to eliminate the absurdity.

The adjective, eponymous means, "being or having to do with an eponym": i.e., the person or thing for whom something is named (e.g., "the eponymous founder of Walt Disney Productions"). One dictionary (Collins) also allows it to mean, "named for its creator or central character" (e.g. "R.E.M.'s eponymous album, 'R.E.M.'"); but Merriam-Webster doesn't. I have accordingly attributed that sense to "recent usage".

The rest of the article still needs a thorough rewriting. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Date System

Would the system of naming years after the reign of emperors be suitable to include in the time-line section of this article? I am new to the concept of editing on Wikipedia so please excuse me for posting here.

"Named for" or "Named after" - which is it?

? 141.6.11.23 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither one is wrong. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eponym. 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/20060209110437/http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Sloan-School-of-Management/15-628Patents--Copyrights--and-the-Law-of-Intellectual-PropertySpring2003/88A3CE91-A80C-4B1A-A08C-AD975FB54DFA/0/kingseeleythermosvAladdin.pdf to http://www.core.org.cn/NR/rdonlyres/Sloan-School-of-Management/15-628Patents--Copyrights--and-the-Law-of-Intellectual-PropertySpring2003/88A3CE91-A80C-4B1A-A08C-AD975FB54DFA/0/kingseeleythermosvAladdin.pdf

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) 02:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Potential split?

I'm interested in writing an article specifically about eponyms in biological taxonomy. There is definitely sufficient literature available for this topic; if you need convincing, search "eponym taxonomy" on Google Scholar and also note the existence of several specific books on the subject. My question is, does the community agree on such a split, and if so, what should the article's title be? eponym (taxonomy)? (note also posted notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life) Esculenta (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems completely logical to me. I think (taxonomy) is a good qualifier given something broader like (biology) would encompass lots of non-taxonomic usage. YFB ¿ 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Esculenta I agree on the split, I think the topic itself can give a potentially lengthy article. A section on the controversy surrounding eponyms would be appreciated. I found 2023 opinion articles by various groups of botanists, some argued that they should be completely forbidden (and retroactively erased) in taxonomy while others reject the notion that taxon names should be modified instead of conserved as they are. In 2024 an international compendium of botanists voted to conserve old eponyms (except for those with "caffra" due to being a racial slur) but also to encourage that future names reference local cultures and areas. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

And maybe it would be nice to have a table of known eponyms, similarly to the List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. I could add many that I have found among protist genera and species, almost entirely in honour of other taxonomists. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was rabbit-holing and came across Anophthalmus hitleri, then found the extensive recent literature you mention about the use of eponyms in modern taxonomy, which led me here. I agree that a lengthy article can be made about this topic ... if there aren't any objections in the next few days, this will appear at the proposed name redlink above. Esculenta (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)