Category talk:Saints

Category:Saints
There are thousands of saints, and the Wikipedia should deal with them. A definition as a saint would not meet the CFI. Unlike biblical or mythical characters, names of saints are not usually translated differently from ordinary given names. --Makaokalani 10:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've sort of made both the argument to keep it and delete it there. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That is, I don't think names of Biblical characters and fictional characters necessarily meet our CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and names of Biblical characters are usually the same as given names. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They are the same in English, but not in several other languages. Biblical and mythological characters, like Diana or angel Gabriel, cannot have given names since, in my opinion, they are not people, they are concepts. But saints were people. There are only two members in this category, so why keep it? --Makaokalani 11:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I favor I deletion for your reasons. But I also favor deleting Biblical characters and fictional characters for your reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The category has lexical value for naming. Quite a few cultures (including English) name children after saints.  This is a regular practice that is well-documented and easily demonstrated.  It therefore illustrates the members of one pool from which given names are chosen. --EncycloPetey 13:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume that would be a child of Category:Given names, and contain Francis, but not St. Francis of Assisi, etc. Shouldn't it be called Category:Given names of saints, Category:Names of saints or Category:Terms related to saints? Are there any common schemes for categorizing baby-names?


 * Delete this category that aggregates people, though. —Michael Z. 2010-04-30 14:53 z 


 * What bothers me is that Category:Saints might contain a hundred saints named John. Category:Given names of saints would make sense, basically, but I'm not planning to fill up such categories so I'm afraid nobody else will do it either. They would mostly be duplicates in every language. But Roman Catholic saints are not the same as Greek Orthodox ones, or Church of England ones, and so on, and I won't bother to look it up for every language. Maybe an Appendix:Names of saints would be simpler. It's quite worth mentioning in (English?) given name entries whether it's also a saint's name in any sect or religion, in usage notes maybe? --Makaokalani 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be reasonable for us to function as an onomastic dictionary, and as a baby-name book. People want to know where names come from; not just their lexicographical etymology, but also the common eponyms. We should definitely not have a definition for each Saint John, but they could be mentioned in the etymology. The information is not strictly etymological, and I'd hate to see 40 St. Johns listed there; what if we had a separate “Eponyms” or “Onomastics” heading instead? —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 23:37 z 


 * (edit conflict) I agree that we should not list each and every saint, and there are only a few saints that might merit a specific entry. In general these entries should be for the given names that have become popular because they were the names of saints, and not the the saints themselves.  Perhaps a semi-etymological category is warranted, such as "Given names derived from the names of Christain saints", or something similar but less wordy and specifying the language? --EncycloPetey 23:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since we already have Category:Given names, is it really necessary to subcategorise? I don't think the notion of whether a particular given name once belonged to a saint is really useful for a dictionary. While it has been noted that people in various countries tend to name their children after saints, the resulting names are given names and hence do not warrant a specific category. Seems more like encyclopedia material to me. —CodeCat 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's onomastic: not strictly lexicographical, but definitely what you'd find in name dictionaries. —Michael Z. 2010-05-16 23:46 z 

Deleted. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)