Talk:Johnson

message: I've split this page off from Johnson, for two reasons.  (1) This list is very long, and will grow longer.  There are certain important parts of a disambiguation page that need to go at the end, and I think it's confusing to have a huge list like this sitting on top of those elements.  (2) Not many people are likely to search for or link to "Johnson" if they're looking for a specific person. --Smack (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better to just link to List of people by name: Joh#Johnson? Saves people from editing in two places Sam Vimes 12:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: I do not know enough about the prominence of the various Samuel Johnsons.  However, I changed the Samuel Johnson link descriptor to multiple people.  This is less drastic than moving the Samuel Johnson article to make way for a dab page, which I am considering posting on Requested moves as well.  TonyTheTiger 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samuel Johnson 

message: ===Survey===
Add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
:Comment--can someone put a concise description of just what this survey is about? It is not at all clear from the discussion above what people are voting on here. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
:Comment--can someone put a concise description of just what this survey is about? It is not at all clear from the discussion above what people are voting on here. older ≠ wiser 22:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Since I'm not entirely sure what people are voting on here, I'm going to refrain from voting just yet. But I'll comment that I am in complete support of having a separate page for listing people named Johnson and another disambiguation page for all the other things (and perhaps possibly including some people who are commonly referred to solely as "Johnson"). older ≠ wiser 22:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I'm removing the proposed merger tags from the two articles, based on the comments above.   John Broughton  |  Talk 15:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: While I have no problem with the split as voted, I have an issue with the naming.  The current set up makes the disambigation page pretty useless.  If I were to enter "Johnson" in the search box looking for a 60s politician, a reasonably likely thing, I would get this page.  I would then have a sea of bluelinks to navigate first to find LBJ.  I would suggest we structure it so the disambiguation page is first.  This would probably mean moving this page to Johnson (surname).  Does this make sense?  (John User:Jwy talk) 17:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname vs. disambiguation pages 

message: As a Johnson myself, I've never seen the coat of arms on this page before. 
The coat of arms I most commonly see is as shown here http://www.celticobsessions.com/Johnson.jpg but with a black background.
Although I am well aware that there are MANY Johnsons and therefore many branches of the name with their own arms, the one I've linked came top of the google image search, and seems to be more common. Spugmeister 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of Arms

message: This article tries to make the mundane Anglo-Scandinavian surname Johnson into an aristocrat-ish name that came with the Normans to England.--Berig 07:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase.  You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Johnson (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 17:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot-generated content 

message: See also: Wang? 81.86.49.118 (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly humour - both Johnson and Wang are slang terms for the male reproductive organ. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wang? 

message: When you deleted some info I added to this article, you stated that my info was "unsourced."  I would like to suggest that references are not needed for the information I added.  Certainly my addition that Johnson has an origin in Ireland requires no reference, because in the article itself, under the section titled "Description," there is a whole paragraph about the name in Ireland.  As you must know, many people in Ireland have surnames of Norman origin, the article elsewhere states that the name is of Norman origin, so, quite obviously, if the name exists in Ireland (either from Anglicization or from Norman origins), then the name has an Irish origin.  Normally, in a scholarly article, references and citations are not needed for literally every sentence and statement.  Since the information I included is entirely consistent with other information contained in the body of the article itself, references and citations are not called for under these circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.71.178 (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2010
:The Wikipedia verifiability policy states that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged ... be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question.". I challenge your assertion that Johnson is a name of Irish origin: therefore, since the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, it is up to you to prove your claim.
:See origin on Wikipedia, also origin on Wiktionary: the origin of a name is where it began, not where it has subsequently been used. Johnson is a name also found in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (I could go on), so is it also "of American/Canadian/Australian/etc. origin"? I think not. You state (and I do not disagree) that the Irish use of the name is of Norman origin: then ipso facto, the name cannot be of Irish origin. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments for Wiki Editor Redrose64 

message: The surname originates in England, Gaelic doesn't have the word son in a patronymic surname, it's not Norman either the patronymic word is Fitz in Norman for example Fitzgerald Meaning son of Gerald, Johnson on the other hand is of old English origin originating from Anglo-saxon Sohne like Richardson and Hudson, what the mistake is here is someone mixed Johnson with JohnsTon which IS Norman origin but it's not patronymic.109.154.13.131 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  It isn't of Irish origin or Norman or Scottish  

message: ┏━━━━┳━━━┳━━━┳┓╋╋┏┓╋╋┏━━━┳━━━┓
┃┏┓┏┓┃┏━┓┃┏━┓┃┃╋╋┃┃╋╋┃┏━━┻┓┏┓┃
┗┛┃┃┗┫┗━┛┃┃╋┃┃┃╋╋┃┃╋╋┃┗━━┓┃┃┃┃
╋╋┃┃╋┃┏┓┏┫┃╋┃┃┃╋┏┫┃╋┏┫┏━━┛┃┃┃┃
╋╋┃┃╋┃┃┃┗┫┗━┛┃┗━┛┃┗━┛┃┗━━┳┛┗┛┃
╋╋┗┛╋┗┛┗━┻━━━┻━━━┻━━━┻━━━┻━━━┛
11:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into individual articles

message: yo dawg why don't you hop on this johnson. --5.64.180.72 (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slang 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Johnson. 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 http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20101007112151/http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/names_files.html to http://www.census.gov/genealogy/names/names_files.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified