Talk:Eponym

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Medical

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eponymic vs. Eponymous 

message: "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)
replies: text: Yes, "eponymous" is an adjective that applies to the person, not to the named item. AxelBoldt 22:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misunderstood usage?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed phrase 

message: 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)
replies: text: Must be American. Bloombergused it for Bernard Madoff. Byeboer (talk) 07:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited "administration" eponyms

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fancy Word

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

message: 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)
thread_title: why no clothing category?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Eponym means either the thing OR the person it is named after

message: 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)
thread_title:  Thatcherism as a North American eponym? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Self-titled 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Self-titled music albums 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Biblical Eponyms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Common nouns with  eponymous origins 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia or dictionary? 

message: 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: 
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misuse of "eponymous" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  More of the same 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Eponym question

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rewriting Definitions in Lede 

message: ? 141.6.11.23 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither one is wrong. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Named for" or "Named after" - which is it? 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified