Talk:Luke (given name)

Meaning[edit]

The Greek – in the case of all four Gospel accounts – has kata, Latin secondo, both meaning according to. In other words [The] Good News according to .... There is a lively discussion as to the genre of the Gospels, hence their precise title, while not original but very early all the same, may be considered significant. (It is easy to see, why one often encounters of, even in scholarly writings ... it is 9 characters and 1 space shorter, and rolls better off the tongue.) Portress 03:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no word in Hebrew meaning light that resembles the word Luke. It is completely Greek in origin.

Agreed. I just fixed the source of the name, and provided a couple references to back it up. --DarthBinky 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Luke"? I can't find any references to this anywhere on the internet... I think somebody made it up.

luke is completly greek. ........... and a good name........... i think.

someone must have made it up. i think it might be italian i gotta find out.

Someone did make it up. As far as I'm aware, Luke has no good or bad meanings.

I read in some name book somewhere that it has something to do with light. I think it was "Bringer of Light" or something like that. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke warm[edit]

What about terms like "luke warm", where does that fit in with the name luke and why isn't it mentioned here? JayKeaton 19:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

has nothing to do with the name. According to the OED, may be related to lee in leeward, leeway. 132.212.92.207 (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? Famous Lukes how about Luc Robitaille THE MOST PROLIFIC LEFT WING IN HOCKEY??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.6.172 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision on 2 Feb., 2013[edit]

I took out the erroneous chronology that claimed Latin was not earlier than the New Testament. The Latin or Greek name translated Luke was found in inscriptions in Asia Minor (Turkey) from a time well before the New Testament. JWorkman 03:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by James K. Workman (talk • contribs)

Requested move 6 February 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Those arguing for the move have the stronger arguments as well as the numerical advantage. Andrewa summarizes the situation especially well: some of the arguments in opposition are arguments to keep the Gospel of Luke from being deemed WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, not to defend the status quo of the name holding that position. Do some of the supporters eventually want that to happen? I don't know, but it's not relevant. --BDD (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Luke → Luke (name)
Luke (disambiguation) → Luke

– The article about the given name is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, since the biblical book (Gospel of Luke) and the biblical person/saint (Luke the Evangelist) both at least as significant. As is the case with Matthew, Mark, and John, the "main" page should be the disambiguation page.Relisted. Joeykai (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC) St Anselm (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Unlike mark and john, the names Matthew and Luke function almost exclusively as proper nouns (the somewhat rare use of luke on its own would not warrant an article). Names that are only used as proper nouns generally have the name article as the primary topic. Lots of names have uses other than of people, and articles about books of the Bible are not automatically more notable than those other uses.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Matthew is a disambiguation page... St Anselm (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As stated at the other discussion, it should probably be moved to be more consistent with other articles about names that only function as proper nouns. Names that are also books of the Bible are not automatically more notable than names that are proper nouns for other things that aren't people. And where a name is also a book of the Bible, the article about the name generally already includes a link to the book of the Bible.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doing a Google Books search, the top ten results are all for the Gospel of Luke. That suggests the name is not the primary topic at all. St Anselm (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has no bearing whatsoever on the proposed move. The book of Luke is named after a person called Luke. This article is about people called Luke, and it already links to the book of Luke.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And people called Luke is not the primary topic. St Anselm (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for substantially the same reasons as set out by Jeffro77. I'll add that the Matthew example in particular does not persuade me because (1) unlike "Luke", "Matthew" as a name is split between two articles, Matthew (name) and Matthew (surname) (although my initial take is that Matthew (name) is the primary topic and should be the target of Matthew); and (B) "What about X" arguments are not particularly persuasive; it's just as likely to that X is a bad example that should be corrected rather than one to be followed. TJRC (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the first reference made in the Luke article is to the Gospel of Luke which I think meets all requirements. Greg Kaye 11:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the no-primary-topic position for this name of many meanings. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in lieu of the far better decision - moving the Gospel of Luke here. Red Slash 05:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasoning as for Daniel. Let us not elevate a Judeo-Christian book relevant to only a fifth or so of the globe to the point of displacing a name of general knowledge. As in Skywalker, Duke, and Ford. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that relevance statistic was true, it's not at all relevant. The relevant things are (a) What (English-speaking) wikipedia users are most likely to be looking for, and (b) what is the most common usage in reliable sources. I suggest that very few people looking for "Luke Skywalker" would simply type in "Luke". St Anselm (talk) 02:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:NOT, i.e. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the name (with its DICDEFish "article") itself is not the primary encyclopedia topic. — AjaxSmack 01:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The oppose votes all seem to miss the point of primary topic. What is being claimed is not that the Book of Luke or the Apostle Luke are either or them more significant or more commonly meant by Luke than the name in general. All that is being asserted it that these other meanings, taken together, are at least as significant or at least as likely to be the meaning or both. So for example the four-fifths of humanity who don't have any personal connection with Christianity aren't being outvoted by the one-fifth who do. But they should be outvoted by those who find any of the other meanings more significant or likely (including people who are not Christians but still regard Jesus as a prophet or similar, such as Baha'i's and even Moslems, depending a bit on how they view the Injil). Andrewa (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Given names have incredible long-term significance, and it is quite reasonable to think that someone entering just a given name in the search box is expecting to find an article about that name. The name "Luke" has been in use since the 12th century as an English name and is currently in the top 50 most commonly used boys names in several English-speaking areas: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm...

Luke vs.
Luke

Support – When the claims to primary topic are this close, the base title should point to the dab page. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in lieu of the best solution, which is redirecting to the gospel. Red Slash 19:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The name is clearly not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when considering the gospel and the Evangelist.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:58, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it is clear that a large number of incoming readers will be searching for the Bible book, or other topics than the name. Some will also be searching for the name. A disambiguation page serves the readership best. — Amakuru (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per everyone who said it is a decent chance a link is to the book 76.120.162.73 (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three months!![edit]

We made it, guys!! Three months after its proposal, it's still open! Go team! Red Slash 02:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hurrah! This is the beauty of Wikipedia. — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Luke (name). 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/20110522193009/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/specials/babiesnames_boys.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]