Talk:Marie-Therese

Marie-Therese
SOP. Given name can be combined in many different ways, we would have millions of entries if they all existed. --The Evil IP address 20:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Hekaheka 02:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I disagree. This is a very, very common hyphenated name, much more so than, to pick some random possible collocations, Sophia-Elizabeth (for which a handful of CFI-worthy hits exist) or Ellen-Joanna (for which I can find no CFI-worthy hits). Despite the hyphenation, it is an individual given name, not a first name and middle name. bd2412 T 02:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, per BD2412. There's not an endless list of these, as they are often based on someone famous. John-Paul is another common one, based on the two previous popes.  Certainly let's limit it to those where there is evidence of usage, and not run off dozens of possible computations. But I noticed this is listed as German, so we are back to the perennial argument about the language used for names.  --Dmol 05:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, we would have millions of entries if they all existed. But all combinations are not used, of course. Only those in use in the language should be included. For French, Marie-Thérèse should be kept, too Lmaltier 06:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Keep. We also have Jean-Paul: and several other common ones. SemperBlotto 07:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how a given name can be SoP, they don't really mean anything. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In the same way that one's first and middle names taken together would be SoP, presumably. Equinox ◑ 11:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That, however, would be two different words. Isn't a hyphenated combination first name technically a single word? bd2412 T 00:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well, yes, all hyphenated names are single words. But I wouldn't make entries for them all. Their use is highly concentrated in certain favorites, often copied from a model, in this case French and Austrian queens. One criterion I'd use is whether their frequency graph is independent from those of the component parts. For example, the latest frequency peak of Marie-Thérèse in France was in 1946, compared to Thérèse in 1930. The use of hyphens is different in every language too. Finns use them rather freely in names. On the other hand, common Spanish names such as José María and María José deserve an entry. Double-barreled surnames are SoP in my opinion if they are mechanically created from Her surname-His surname or Daddy's surname-Mommy's surname. We don't have entries for hyphenated surnames as far as I know.--Makaokalani 15:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just want to point out that I don't, as some people seem to think, have a particular fetish for things being "single words": it's just that there's a good argument that (even competent) language learners wouldn't understand where the split was, sans hyphen. e.g. nonoolitic doesn't immediately leap out as non- plus something; the same goes for many un- words. The presence of a hyphen, however, shows the split. Equinox ◑ 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a word in a language, WT:CFI line 1. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This "CFI line 1" autokeep seems inconsistent with your rejection of brand names etc., which are also words in English, just perhaps not suitable "dictionary words". Equinox ◑ 20:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it's inconsistent... but so is CFI, so I don't feel too bad about being inconsistent. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is that argument fundamentally different from (which I hope you'd reject) "Well Wiktionary already has vandalism and errors, so adding more is a good idea"? Equinox ◑ 20:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How is it similar? I don't see it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary already has plenty of words (including words with hyphens and even spaces in them). Adding more is a good idea. bd2412 T 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is as foolish a statement as the other one if you are saying that "adding more" logically follows from "some exist". I think adding more is good, but not because there are already some! Equinox ◑ 21:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have put a smiley face after the statement to indicate that I was being facetious. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I'd rather edit some entries than go for one of my long, soaring, philosophical answers. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 18:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)