Talk:Juan

Earlier Coments

where was it the 55th most common name? Spain? Spanish speaking world? World? (clem 12:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC))

I don't mean to offend anybody, but this stub is filled with irrelevant information. Obi Juan Kenobi? Don't bother.

Me Llamo Juan

Removed the stub template, add root etymology, link to list of cognates, and Spanish interwiki link. There really isn't much to a personal name, and 1) there's a largish John entry and this is the English Wikipedia and 2) larger article more appropos es:WP. Lycurgus 11:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jerked stuff about intermediate etymology, bogus as it was. Would link the etymology § of John (name) but the WP section linking stuff doesn't work for that at this time. Lycurgus 16:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

second paragraph

Chinese Juan has nothing to do with Spanish.--刻意(Kèyì) 16:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite true. But people may encounter this Pinyin form of a Chinese word (either a personal name, or a juan scroll; the latter word appears pretty often in bibliographic references), and would want to look it up on Wikipedia. (Surpisingly, there is an article (Цзюань) on Juan (scroll) in Russian wikipedia). So it stands to reason we should mention them somwehere. From my point of view, the best solution would be to have Juan (disambiguation), which would contain a link to the page Juan about the Spanish name, as well, as links to pages for other meanings. The trouble is, the other links would all be red, and it seems (unfortunately) against the rules. Vmenkov (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"Typically, this is pronounced, as the Spanish name sometimes is in British locales, as two syllables instead of the one and with a voiced instead of an aspirated J." Is this sentence talking about Spanish pronouciation or Chinese pronouciation?--刻意(Kèyì) 09:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Manx Name

Juan is also a name in the Isle of Man. It is a form of 'John' in Manx Gaelic (unrelated to the Spanish). It's pronounced with a hard Ju like in Jude, followed by something between an and un, with emphasis on the first syllable (not the second as in Spanish).

I would enter it myself in the heading of this article, but I wouldn't know how to write the pronounciation.

It is a name which is relatively common in the Isle of Man, but references for it include this one on the Manx National Heritage site: http://www.gov.im/mnh/heritage/library/publicinfo/manxNames.xml

86.159.123.13 (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Diminutives

What about the various diminutive forms of Juan, such as Juancho, Juanelo and Juantxu?--94.222.164.210 (talk) 08:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Set Index vs DAB?

WP:SETINDEX says a list article is "about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name." The Chinese term "juan" does not meet this criterion, and in fact is spelled "juan" only in pinyin, not other romanizations.

WP:SETNOTDAB says "Sometimes there will be a disambiguation page and a set index article for the same term, " but if the "set index article is the primary topic, it may be named with just the term itself."

Should we edit the DAB page "Juan (disambiguation)" or copy the Chinese items there? ch (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I was asked in this thread to be involved.

Hi ch and others. There are two issues: 1. How to handle juan, the Chinese term, and 2. the Juan (disambiguation) page.

Juan, the Chinese term: The addition of one use of "juan" makes it technically no longer a set index. That would call for the removal of the category. However, I'd suggest letting that category remain and just putting a hatnote at the top of the Juan article page that says "This article is about the name Juan, for the Chinese library term, see Juan (Chinese library term). Is that acceptable? Am I getting that right?

The Juan (disambiguation) page: It is useless because the only thing that linked to it was a see also item at Juwan. I have changed that item from Juan (disambiguation) to Juan. I will now delete it Juan (disambiguation) uncontroversially. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Does this sort things out? Am I missing something obvious? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for this sensible first step. It's still a confusing situation until somebody writes an article on the Chinese book. There already is Book and Book collecting, where someone can add Chinese information at some time in the future and merge the paragraph on juan/ fascicle there.

The new page or section would have to have a description of the Chinese thread-sewn book and several other terms in addition to juan. ch (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ch. It would be quite unlikely for someone to come to Wikipedia and search juan looking for something about Chinese book serials, wouldn't you say? If they do, and find nothing, then there is nothing to find. They might look at the articles for Book and Book collecting and find nothing there too. Also, what is "...the paragraph on juan/ fascicle.."? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

A reciprocal "Hi" user:Anna Frodesiak, and ramped up thanks for the question . I was talking about Juan#Chinese terms, which doesn't really belong in this article, but restructuring would be a can of worms.

The use of a Redirect for "juan (Chinese book)" or "juan (fascicle)" would not, as you rightly point out, so much be for those who search for information about Chinese books as for links in articles that involve Chinese books. The Wikipedia search ~juan library, for instance, gets a fair number of hits (though clearly not primary).

One semi-important point, though, is that there is ambiguity in English usage. Sometimes juan is translated as "volume" in the sense of "book," and sometimes "volume" in the sense of "fascicle of a thread-bound Chinese book." The importance comes in estimating the size of a Chinese library or book collection -- having 10,000 juan could mean 10,000 books (titles) or a far smaller number of titles, made up of 10,000 juan. Again, I don't think that juan (fasicle) or whatever needs its own article because it should be treated as only one element of a traditional Chinese book.

After posting yesterday I found Traditional Chinese bookbinding, which also might be edited.

Cheers, ch (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi ch. So sorry. Now you understand how my brain works. I looked at the article and totally never saw Juan#Chinese terms. Yes, that has no place at all in a set index page. None whatsoever. Also, those are basically dictionary definitions. So, why not just cut them out (save them on your computer, or dig them out of the history later) and, if you ever write content at Wikipedia that needs them, paste them there (with attribution, of course)? Now, if you want to use that Juan#Chinese terms content right away, you could possibly get rid of the common given name for Chinese women bit and paste the book bit into Volume (bibliography). That might be a better place than Traditional Chinese bookbinding, but that is your call. If you do put it somewhere, then a hatnote at this article would be in order.

We would never want '"...Redirect for "juan (Chinese book)" or "juan (fascicle)"...", if you are referring to a page that redirects somewhere. This is because they would never be searched.

Again, sorry about not seeing that content. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Good advice -- sorry to drag you in, user:Anna Frodesiak, but I was in over my head and you pulled me out.

I'm short of time right now and working on another article, but I'll soon go ahead and cut the "Chinese terms" section and paste it (with attribution!) either into into Volume (bibliography) or a draft article in my userspace (or maybe a stub article in mainspace) on "Traditional Chinese book" or some such (I'll have to check what parallel articles are called). ch (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help. Sorry to have been so daft. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)