Talk:Ortega

Gutierre Tibón isn't a serious source for the name's etymology. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here is an illuminating post wrt the "royal bloodline of the Ortegas" (Charlemagne and what not) on genforum.genealogy.com. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a look. It is a load of wishful thinking and sloppy invention, and has no bearing on the actual ancestries of actual Ortega families. Agricolae (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.163.112.21 and User:ZeroRT3GA: the continued edits/reverts you are making are questionable, for the reasons of:

They are self-contradictory, such as in assuming that all Ortegas come from the same lineage, yet asserting that three separate etymologies are correct.
Contradict material already included in the article, as in when the name is first attested, or the existence of versions of the name in other Romance languages.
Make claims that are not reliably sourced: while previous editors have provided at least one specific source of information, you have not made clear where you are getting your information from, and two of the sources given likely do not fall under the category of reliable sources. Namely, the reference " Ancestry.com: "Facts Ortega-name-meaning" " gives nothing but a snippet from a work already given in the article about the possible "grouse" etymology (and which you reverted away), and the "Book by Ancestry.com" is one of a line put out by that organization which are simply printed on demand using a generic template into which bits of information are inserted, this typically coming from user-uploaded materials. If there is a given author other than "Ancestry.com", or if there is a different methodology for this particular book, please provide it, otherwise it does not seem especially trustworthy or authoritative - two things needed for proper sourcing.
A considerable portion of the added material looks irrelevant to the subject of the article, as does at least one of the external links (Another look at Asturias & Leon Kings).
General geneological red flags, such as asserting that all bearers of a given surname descend from the same illustrious ancestor, ties with celebrated ancient peoples, etc.

These are among the reasons that your edits are questioned, and before reverting to your favored version of the article it would be best to answer these questions in Talk or make the necessary changes to the article itself. Ergative rlt (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

probably the same user. Obviously somebody called Ortega, and desperate to claim "sangre azul". This isn't serious. dab (𒁳) 22:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Ortega → Ortega (surname) — Ortega should redirect to Ortega (disambiguation), and this page should be moved to Ortega (surname). At the disambiguation page, the page Ortega (surname) should then be linked. Cs32en Talk to me 03:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. If you look at the current Ortega (disambiguation), you'll see there are only three other articles on subjects with "Ortega" as the unqualified name, Ortega, Tolima, Ortega (grape), and Ortega Neighborhood. The surname is clearly the primary topic of the four. (I know there are many other articles on the list but they are all XXX Ortega and most searches for people with the common surname Ortega would not be for "Ortega" alone). — AjaxSmack 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unlikely that someone who searches for Ortega is looking for information about the surname. It's much more likely that the reader is looking for information on one of the persons named Ortega. The aggregate of the articles about people named Ortega is clearly more important than the other articles. That does not make the article about the surname Ortega the primary topic with regard to all the other articles. Even if it would be more important than any single Ortega article, it would not be as important relative to the overall information about "Ortega" to warrant the redirect from Ortega bypassing the disambiguation page. Cs32en Talk to me 21:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:DABNOT, specifically "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion." The long list of persons having Oretga as part of their name should be at the surname page and not the disambiguation page, anyway. — AjaxSmack 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggestion As an alternative to redirecting Ortega to the disambiguation page, I suggest redirecting Ortega to Daniel Ortega. In February 2010, Daniel Ortega received 10443 hits [1], while Ortega received 1334 hits [2]. Cs32en Talk to me 21:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there evidence that any of those looking for Daniel Ortega are typing "Ortega" in the search box expecting to find the Daniel Ortega article? United Kingdom [3] had 85 times as many pageviews as Kingdom [4] but we don't redirect that. — AjaxSmack 04:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But people when looking for information about someone often type only his surname. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true in general (though not demonstrated here) but, a) there are a lot of other people named Ortega and, b) Wikipedia doesn't usually redirect a last name to one person unless that person is overwhelmingly the sole person identified with that name (e.g., Shakespeare, Churchill). — AjaxSmack 06:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the surname actually does not redirect at all, but the respective page is a de facto disambiguation page. See Carter, Bush, Merkel, Blair, Clinton, Johnson, Kennedy, [[Harper], Schröder, Schmidt, Sarkozy, Chirac for an overview of the current situation. Cs32en Talk to me 21:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]