Talk:Tiffany

Origins

related to Theophania?

added link to wiktionary to show meaning. in short, yes.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany has meaning both as a proper noun and as a common noun

"Tiffany" as it is used in the girls name and in the family name (as-in, Louis Comfort Tiffany) and then I find a definition for the word used as a common noun:
tiffany |ˌtɪfəni|, noun, thin gauze muslin. Early 17th century: from Old French tifanie, via ecclesiastical Latin from Greek theophaneia ‘epiphany.’ The word is usually taken to be short for Epiphany silk or muslin, which is a reference to that worn on Twelfth Night (holiday), but may be a humorous allusion to epiphany in the sense: manifestation; tiffany being semitransparent.
source: NOAD2
--Charles Gaudette 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eponymous

There is no other word that describes being an eponym. Other than some vague animus against the use of this common term, what is the reason for deleting it? Frankly, the fact that we are even discussing this is ridiculous; tomorrow when I have more energy I will open an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why the word is not superfluous. If written as "Tiffany, the debut album of Tiffany Darwish, released on 15 September 1987", it has the exact same meaning as "Tiffany, the eponymous debut album of Tiffany Darwish, released on 15 September 1987". The extra word provides no additional information. Adding unnecessary words is very poor writing style. Or is the goal to tell the dumb readers that the word "Tiffany" is the same as the word "Tiffany"? Let's compare this to an article that has achieved "Good article" status (the very best of Wikipedia articles): The Beatles (album). Nowhere in that article is the ridiculously unnecessary word "eponymous" used. On one thing I agree with you: Frankly, the fact that we are even discussing this is ridiculous. Sundayclose (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Eponym" means "to be named after", so what you're suggesting is that the sentence essentially reads "Tiffany (album), the debut album named after Tiffany Darwish of Tiffany Darwish, released on 15 September 1987". It's more than superfluous, it's duplication. I'm against it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:SNOW close; no additional support for this in almost a month, and the request for clarification from the one supporter was not answered. Consensus is clearly against use of this word in this context, for multiple reasons. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) nac[reply]

RFC: Tiffany (album)

{{rfc|media|lang}} Should the debut album of Tiffany Darwish, named 'Tiffany', be described as 'eponymous'? Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Closing admin and interested readers can refer to previous discussion in the section immediately above: Talk:Tiffany#eponymous.

Oppose for the reasons that I state in the previous section. Very poor writing style. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as stated above. I'm also amused that I'm having to duplicate my post above to point out that I'm against duplication. Hah. Irony. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - 'eponymous' adds clarification. It is regularly used in this context - get used to it! NB could be omitted from simple:Tiffany though. Batternut (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Batternut: What clarification does it add? What does it tell us that's not there if the word is not used? Be specific please. Sundayclose (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it is unnecessary and redundant. older ≠ wiser 12:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The overuse of "eponymous" has for some reason become fashionable on Wikipedia. It is almost always silly, and in this particular case is especially redundant. --Macrakis (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The word "eponymous" undeniably accurately describes the album. Nevertheless, there is no need for it here. "Eponymous" is a great word to use if you are discussing an eponym at length, and you don't want to keep repeating the word "namesake" or the phrase "named after." Here, it adds nothing because, as was mentioned in the discussion above, without the word "eponymous" it's still unambiguously clear that the album and artist share a name. "Eponymous" is, essentially, one of a limitless number of accurate descriptors for the album that are not needed on this disambiguation page for the entry to be clear as to what is described. --DavidK93 (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tiffany Darwish which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]