Talk:True name

Linguistics Mid‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I also think there is a truename system in Eragon too.--JP585 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

no reason given for the split. Goldfritha 20:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how is the legal term at all related to the topic of this article? dab (𒁳) 07:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the current stuff related to the topic of this article? It was the original topic; the other stuff was added after. Goldfritha 01:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so you are not against splitting, you are saying the other part should be split off. That's perfectly arguable. Maybe we should make this a disambiguation page then. dab (𒁳) 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Earthsea

Should mention as a prominent feature of Ursula k. LeGuin's Earthsea series, including The Rule of Names... AnonMoos (talk) 10:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed Antiquity

This article gives me no reason to believe that true names are not the exclusive domain of fantasy writers. Were there any 'ancient' cultures that believed in true names in the way they exist in fantasy? 141.195.136.90 (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on the "ancient" thing, but Rumpelstiltskin and various remote cultures studied by anthropologists were certainly not influenced by modern fantasy writers... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D&D

If this article gets updated, It'd be great to include some references to Dungeons and Dragons. It's a notable property / multiverse and the idea of True Names is a reasonably large part of it (definitely Planescape). I remember it coming up in more than one video game adaptation, for example.66.46.112.60 (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal - True Names in Popular Culture

I propose that True names in popular culture be merged into True name. True names in popular culture discusses uses of the subject in True name, and would work best under the nonexistent popular culture section of this article.Randomizer3 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it would belong under the existing "Folklore and fantasy" section, and I'd agree with a merge if the material were condensed into a similar paragraph-based-format as the existing material (ie, not a new-line for each separate author). —Quiddity (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly selective merge - None of this is independently sourced. It is essentially a laundry list of "in popular culture" mentions of trivial to no importance. The vast majority of the article belongs in the dust bin. Should any sources surface that discuss the concept as exemplified in any of the examples listed here, we can add them to the target article. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Citations would definitely be wanted. However, given the topic, an extensive overview of each of the three main sections (linguistics, religion, cultural artifacts) will be warranted when it (eventually) approaches FA quality. I do agree that the content in the other article currently should be vastly (more than 2/3) shortened in wordcount though, condensed into topical sentences with grouped examples. —Quiddity (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge. It would be better to have all the material in one place. Getting rid of bad material is another issue, but not affected one way or the other by a merge. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no objections I will go ahead with the merge soon. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Jacob reference, not about true name

I propose to remove the paragraph about Jacob wrestling with the angel, because it's not about the True name. It's confusing because it makes people think the true name can change. --II ARROWS (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skin Walkers

I believe there is a similar belief about Skin Walkers. By saying their real name you can either command or kill them. Wcichello (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Paragraph Needs Better Sources

The link to paganwiccan.about.com is down, and I'm pretty sure wicca-spirituality.com isn't really up to Wikipedia source standards... Iserlon (talk) 03:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last paragraph of "Philosophical and religious contexts" gives no credible source

It makes the unqualified a statement that "Contemporary pre-industrial peoples guard secret names which are only used in solemn rituals. These names are never mentioned and kept from general knowledge". It cites as authority Frazer's *Golden Bough* (1890) but that is not considered a credible source by modern anthropologists. Frazer did not conduct fieldwork, but relied on secondhand reports from missionaries, explorers, and colonial administrators. There's also no reason to be citing the 1959 abridged edition of Frazer's book - if the claim really were supported by the source, it would be better to cite the original, unabridged edition. 49.196.214.135 (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]