Talk:Birkenhead

Requests for deletion - kept
Kept. See archived discussion of December 2008. 12:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV discussion — failed
Moved from rfd for cites of attributive use per WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a surname.451 bearers in England and Wales.--Makaokalani 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in the entry. Evidence? What about other 3 senses? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for removing the rfv - I mistook it for the rfd mentioned in the talk page. I have no opinion about earls,they are no use for me anyway, but when a word is an attested surname, it's sensible to add a place name definition, to avoid confusion, and to show which one derives from which.  I'm just putting surnames into categories. Place names are creeping in, there should be some limit to them. --Makaokalani 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What you say seems sensible to me for such entries, although one could argue for placing the place name in an Etymology section, as we sometimes do for unattestable brand names.
 * Though I think that many proper noun entries are too duplicative of WP articles, I am really interested in achieving alignment between WT:CFI and our practice. At present I see the supplanting of CFI by votes on individual entries. If we have a policy of including surnames, is our evidence standard the same as for other entries (thereby favoring the names of authors!!!)? I could see the merit in distinct evidence standards for various classes of Proper nouns, but I would like it discussed and voted on. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense changed to etymology section. —Ruakh TALK 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)