This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anthroponymy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names 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.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Applied Linguistics High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

It would be nice to expand this article by outlining the rules of name giving in general, and name giving to new or unknown things in particular. Obviously, you can classify the name giving exercise by considering the type of thing to be idnetified by a name. What is more interesting perhaps, how, for instance in translating text you give a name to something not existing in the target language. This is to do with creating new meaning or sometimes homonyms, etc. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.83.112 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently implies that onomastics deals only with proper names. Is there some other field that deals with the sorts of non-unique variable names used in computer software? Is there some other field that deals with non-proper names in general -- such as the recent "planets" vs. "dwarf planets" vs. "minor planets" controversy? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an expert in this field but found the "proper" in the first sentence confusing. Would it be possible to briefly explain what a "proper" name is (as opposed to an improper one)? - 129.67.91.55 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article fit into any particular Wikipedia Project? If so, please add a template here. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a footnote from an article by David Snowden contrasting the use of onomastics with two other similar terms.

"Ontology is commonly misused in the IT profession as an elevated version of taxonomy and is in fact closer to onomastics than it is to ontology."^[1]

Roberthambly (talk) 08:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Onomastics or onomatology

• Anthroponomastics or anthroponymy (anthroponyms: names of persons)

• Demonymics or demonymy (demonyms: names of natives of a particular place)
• Ethnonymics or ethnonymy (ethnonyms: names of ethnic groups)

• Oeconomastics or oikonymy (oeconym or oikonyms: names of houses or buildings)
• Toponomastics or toponymy (toponyms: names of places or geographical entities)

• Hydronomastics or hydronymy (hydronyms: names of bodies of water)

• Potamonomastics or potamonymy (potamonyms: names of rivers)
• Thalassonomastics or thalassonymy (thalassonyms: names of seas)?

• Oronomastics or oronymy (oronyms: names of mountains)?

More? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.132.205 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beserkadvocacy I've never heard of the term Re-Onomastics (not that this means it's incorrect by any means!) Where are you drawing it from? Faust.TSFL (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]