Talk:Buffy (given name)

Gender

There is an ongoing dispute over the gender of this name. As two people on the list of Buffys are male, it’s unisex, which is why I originally categorized it as “Hypocorism” and not “Feminine hypocorism.” Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The two examples are not the person's actual names, but stage names and rapper stages names with one being an English translation of Korean rapper and another being named David with half a dozen nicknames. This article is on the given name Buffy and stage names are not given names. The hypocorism categorization part is not applied to anyone who uses the name Buffy since Buffy started as a hypocorism of Elizabeth. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:44, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

You are the editor who has removed the Category: Masculine hypocorisms listing. Yes, as a feminine name it can be derived from Elizabeth. I wrote the first version of the article and added that particular reference, It is also in occasional use as a masculine name, with varied origins, as shown by the inclusion of males on the list of Buffys. The original entry was simply Category: Hypocorisms which is most accurate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Hypocorisms are net every incident of the name. Buffy is a Elizabeth. Others name the name who aren't named Elizabeth, but that's not a hypocorisms. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

We can keep going on and on over this or just agree that it’s a hypocorism and be done with it. It was traditionally also masculine, probably in that instance a transferred use of a surname or place name. It likely was a short form of names as far ranging as Buffington or William (as in Buffalo Bill) and for Barbara and other names as well as Elizabeth. It is a unisex hypocorism. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not arguing. It's what a heroism is and the article itself that it didn't come Buffalo Bill or Barbara. It isn't hypothetical or unknown situation. Elizabeth is where it started just like Liz or Beth. There is no tradition of boys named Buffy and the article doesn't back that up. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

To quote the article itself on hypocorisms, a hypocorism, from Ancient Greek ὑποκόρισμα hypokórisma; sometimes also hypocoristic), or pet name, is a name used to show affection for a person. It may be a diminutive form of a person's name, such as Izzy for Isabel or Bob for Robert, or it may be unrelated.” In this instance, Buffy is indeed often a hypocorism for Elizabeth, but it is also used as a pet name for masculine names, as evidenced by the men included in the list. It is unisex. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

It's the origin of the name which is the point. The men are stage names. Drake the rapper isn't on the Drake given name page. Given names are not the same thing as stage names. And the two stage names aren't hypocorisms. Buffy isn't a hypocorism of David. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Trying it another way. Hypocorisms are "pet names" or affectionate nicknames usually taken from the proper name. Polly comes from the given name Mary, but it's not a hypocorism as an example. The male examples aren't affectionate "pet names" let alone taken from the proper name. It just seems so odd since nearly every line of this article is about how Buffy is a girl's name. Also the category for Feminine hypocorism is relatively new. Cladeal832 (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I’m going to continue to object for the reasons above. Either add Masculine hypocorisms or leave it as simply Hypocorisms. It is also masculine in use. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't just make dictates. Your reasons is not based on reality or at least cited information on the article. No example of Buffingtons being called Buffy. I can't just make up that there might be men with the last name Lizzington means Liz or Lizzie is a male name. "Pet names" and "stage names" are not the same thing which isn't a disputed fact. and hypocorisms are pet names which again isn't disputed. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

And quoting, "The SSA data also shows that BUFFY is used as a girl's name 100% of the time." Cladeal832 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Not contesting whether this article is categorized under "Male state names" or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Look — “pet name” does not have to be derived directly from an individual’s name. By its very definition, it is alson an acquired nickname, which definitely applies to the stage name that these men were known by. There are two men listed with the name. It is both. The only thing we agree on is that it is a hypocorism. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Putting "Look" at the start doesn't make your points any more or less legitimate. Pet names aren't stage names and stage names are not hypocorisms so does it apply. It is not both. hypocorism are just any nickname and you are using the broadest application since neither example have to hypocorism are come pout affectionate & Informal nicknames for the given name. Stage names are professional and deliberate. Stage names are pseudonyms see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names. If nothing else a stage name/rap name is chosen by the person and "pet names" from affection don't come from oneself. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

To expand upon this increasinly ridiculous argument, here is an obituary for a man with the hypocorism Buffy. Granted, he was non-notable, but he was a Buffy: Buff and Buffy were also apparently nicknames, not just a stage name, for Darren Robinson: “Mr. Robinson, who used the nicknames Buff Love and the Human Beat Box …” , to quote the NY Times obit.referenced in his article. Then there’s this: A male dog, for whatever that’s worth, named for his buff color: Vladimir Putin also had a male dog named Buffy.

Diverse origins for the term itself: . It is also a surname and it has undoubtedly been used for boys as a transferred use of the surname, matching the pattern of use for other names, though none are notable: ; ; In short, it is a unisex hypocorism with multiple, diverse origins. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You are working backwards in that you want it to be unisex and rationalizing rather providing verifiable evidence. Your thinking would anything possible, but you haven't proved anything and also directly ignore the actual content of the article. Diverse doesn't mean any and all circumstances and "undoubtedly" isn't a citation or a source. Definitions aren't taken from what one person believes. It's the first line of the article that it originated at a pet name for Elizabeth. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I provided multiple examples that prove it is unisex. I also added the original reference from the Oxford Dictionary of Names. Yes, it often comes from Elizabeth. Not always. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

You provided links, often ones which don't meet the reliable source standard, and also half are just Buffy as a last name and is an article on Buffy as a given name. It's right there in the page title. You keep making this leap that if a man has the last name Buffy it might also be his pet nickname and even using a last name as a last name as a pet name isn't an example of a hypocorism. You shouldn't site one non-notable man's obituary where it doesn't even state how he got the name as the origin) is what matters for categorization. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Just give it up. It’s also masculine in use, with multiple origins, as is demonstrated by the list and the articles cited. The name has used for male and female pets, masculine fictional characters, and pet names were adopted as stage names by assorted performers.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:39, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"Just give it up" isn't a valid reason. None of your (non-RS) links back up a hypocorism for males too. I've done the curtesy of actually trying to address why you're inaccurate. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

And what reason do you have for deleting the addition of Buffy Chen and the TaleSpin characters? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There are example of feminine hypocorisms, but the origins of why Buffy Dee or rappers Buffy got those stage names isn't stated. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It’s a masculine name as well, probably with any number of reasons. Six little American boys were named Buffy in 1971 during the same timeframe the show The Family Affair was on. That was also when it was most popular for girls. Buffy is a snooty male fox character in a Disney cartoon. We can make an educated guess that some parents liked the name for their boys because of the show. The name was in the aether. There were actors named Buffy. Buff is a color shade as well as a surname and a slang term for being physically fit. It rhymes with fluff and puff. Vladimir Putin just thought it sounded cute and nice. Any number of origins could apply. It is ridiculous to keep arguing that it is not also masculine.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to make a bunch of statements based on nothing more than hunches. You're not suppose to just guess, educated or not. You don't know why or how they got the name while the article itself already explains Elizabeth to Buffy. Any and all nicknames are not automatically hypocorism, especially ones totally unrelated to the proper name. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Professional credits or rap names are not the same thing as a given name nor do you cite to any verifiable source for your assertions beyond yourself. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:10, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The verifiable data is in the U.S. Social Security Administrations given name statistics listed at Beyond the Top 1,000. It was given to six boys in 1971. The chart at Nancy’s Baby Names is a visualization of the same data. It is demonstrably in use as a male name from the list of males included and of male characters.I previously cited an obituary for a man who was nicknamed Buffy.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You also ignore every other piece of information already on the article. You wrote it's ridiculous to argue except you don't argue. You just restate your point as if it's beyond even the tiny reproach. I'm not looking for an induvial obituary online for women named Buffy since that would be called original research. This is not Terry, Kim or Corey. You are basing this around a over 5-decade old stat on a website that can't be verified and substituting your own judgement above the cited sourced as they are all wrong to call it a feminine name. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The Social Security Administrations given has downloadable data for every year going back to 1880 and the data shows every name with five or more uses in any given year. Yes, it is verifiable by anyone who chooses to look it up. I cited the chart at Nancy’s Baby Names and then looked up the data for the relevant years. All of the lists are searchable. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

So the part where only girls have been named Buffy doesn't matter. 6 over 50 years ago means it's unisex and also SSA doesn't explain the origins the name let alone if it's a hypocorism or not. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

”Primarily feminine.” There have been a handful of males with the name, per the stats, the list of men in the article and other citations provided. One origin is Elizabeth, though some had names like Beverley if you look at the list of female Buffys.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I did and also read the citations. Your standard means no name would stratify feminine or masculine. That's the "independent name" part. Your writing is misleading that there are not multiple origins rather the Elizabeth one which is cited and I know a girl named Trevor, but I don't cite it to remove masculine. Also you don't ever research these people. I looked up Buffy Dee and it's not a pet name, but another kind of put-down version of "Fatty" nickname which isn't an affectionate pet name. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Preppy last name? Your last name doesn't mean you are are are not preppy. Again, only your sources matter and all the others don't since they match. Even by the standard, you . Original research would looking back to 1971, yet ignoring zero examples since and the lack of curiosity or trying to find meaning in that is, to use your word, ridiculous. Also 1971 matter for one of your points, but the origins of Buffy doesn't since we can just guess how it came to exist or mealymouthed phrases like "it is said" or something like that. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Per the book that I cited, it is a stereotypically preppy nickname used for various names, including surname names. The use of the name over time matters. I’m not sure why you think its use in 1971 would not be of significance. Everything in the article currently as written is cited.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at the list. Dorothy Buffum Chandler took the nickname from her maiden name, Buffum. Buffy Sainte-Marie was born Beverley. The Preppy Handbook I cited notes that it’s a “catch-all” pet form for many names, including preppy surnames. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You keep acting like one example cancels out everything else. It doesn't. The part of how it has become an independent name covers your concerns and doesn't negate that actual origins of the name. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is that there are demonstrably multiple origins of this name. Yes, Elizabeth is one of them. It is also occasionally masculine in use. We have both behaved badly here, but my concerns remain. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

But you haven't cited any and there are people named Betty whose full isn't Elizabeth or Betty is their actual name, but that doesn't negate the origins of the name. You ask about thinking it out, but no examples from this website is over 50 years of boys named Buffy seems like a good sign it isn't used for boys. Writing it's a feminine name doesn't mean much since a girl or boy can be named whether the parents wish, but I do think you aren't picking on the trend of zero examples. Maybe you heard of that whole "A Boy Named Sue Song." The "primarily" and other stuff just feels misleading to the reader since cite after cite has it has Feminine, diminutive of Elizabeth and I don't think you've shown them to be wrong. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Names that are used for both sexes are unisex. They can be overwhelmingly used for one gender, as this one is. In that case, they are primarily feminine or primarily masculine. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What you are currently doing is deleting cited information. The Preppy Handbook says the following: “Popularized in the TV sitcom of 1960s, “Family Affair.” A catch-all. For Buxtons and Bundys”. The Oxford dictionary entry says “Informal pet form of Elizabeth, based on a child’s unsuccessful efforts to pronounce the name.”Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You've haven't actually cited Buxton nicknamed Buffy. Also none of these cited say it's unisex. And "The Official Preppy Handbook" is meant to taken as humorous and satire. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Satire based on stereotypes that are often regarded as based in truth. Also cited in a journal of onomastics. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Accuracy and "often regarded" are not the same thing. Wouldn't need to be this hard to find examples if your statements were true. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Once again, you are removing cited information. The current version of the article is correct and is cited. 19:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Bookworm857158367 (talk)

Once again and again, you are ignoring citations already on the article and your citations is original research and a humor book. You haven't cited one source that it's a male name. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look, you would see that it’s also listed in the onomastics journal’s annotated bibliography that is cited. It is occasionally masculine in use per the multiple statistical sources cited (Social Security stats) and the list of men and a fictional character who used the name. I added cited sources which you are deleting at this point out of recalcitrance. The article is correct as it is currently written. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Had you read baby name book after baby name book showing it listed as feminine and never explained why they are all wrong. You are ignoring source that disagrees with your personal take. Cladeal832 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple sources. Yes, it is primarily female, which the article says. Yes, it is occasionally male, which the statistics show. That statement is cited. Here are some other examples of males named Buffy. Buffy appears to be this guy’s real name: https://buffycolemanshow.com/about-buffy. Above is the obit for the other male Buffy. It has occasionally been used as both a real name and a nickname as well as a stage name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Based on news coverage, Buffy Coleman was a former Harlem Globetrotter and a current motivational speaker in schools. He has some regional coverage and a documentary. https://www.djournal.com/monroe/, https://press-herald.com/world-class-ball-handler-buffy-coleman-films-documentary-at-central-elementary-school/ Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, you just ignore to say whatever you want to say. Again baby name book after baby name book list it as feminine and haven't explain why they are all wrong and you alone are right citing single digit examples of people who are named Darren, Robert or Anthony. Cladeal832 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The name book definition is cited. So are examples indicating it has also been used on occasion for boys, which is part of the history and usage of the name. I’ve done what I could to improve on the article and provide cited sources. You are not improving the article by deleting cited sources from government statistics, published books and peer reviewed journals. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Buffy Coleman doesn't have his own article. The standard is not can you find any examples of a man with a feminine name snice by that standard no article would have them. The best is that in 1971 0.00028% of newborns weren't girls since it not relevant and undermines you point since the same website you cite all lists Buffy as a girl name "!00%" which you ignore. I read the article without your latest edits and think it's a girl name, but a few guys use it as a nickname, but I don't need your handholding opinions to tell what is and isn't. Again, you don't explain why you ignore the citations or why not citation outside of your own original research (which good or bad, is banned from Wikipedia) has it as a unisex name. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The name is primarily female. Occasional use for males is part of the history and use of the name. Similar information is routinely included in other name articles of this type. You have continued to delete cited information. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Most sources do list it as a feminine name because it’s used as a primarily feminine name. A couple of sources note the rare use for boys, which I cited. This is another, though it doesn’t qualify as a reliable source: https://www.momjunction.com/baby-names/buffy/ Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

For whatever it’s worth, Bruce Lansky’s 100,000+ Baby Names: The most helpful, complete, & up-to-date name book gives the meaning as “buffalo; from the plains.” He also lists it as a girl’s name, which it primarily is, but “buffalo” is certainly one of the possible origins of the name. It’s a pet name of Elizabeth and also derived from other sources. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:37, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm just trying to use the most neutral language. "It can also be a masculine name" isn't needed since that's self-evidently true of any feminine name and vis-versa. I could put in a line about Buffy starts with B, the second letter of the alphabet and it would be true, but also unneeded.

You citations don't call it unisex and you ignore the pile sources that call it feminine. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The version you keep reverting also does not call it unisex. It says it is a primarily feminine name and hypocorism that has occasionally also been used for boys. The categories are simply hypocorisms and nicknames, without specifying gender. The list of males called Buffy clearly shows some men are occasionally also called Buffy. Stats back that up. Usage is part of the history and origin of the name. Your version isn’t “neutral.” At this point, it omits cited facts. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Which you have just done again by deleting two additional sources that offer additional origins for the name. This has gone just about far enough. You are apparently not interested in improving this article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having your takes be taken over the citations. Your citations to a humor book don't even back up what you're writing and you were writing them even before you started citing a comedy book. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You have consistently deleted cited sources and are demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to improve on the article. The “humor book” was cited in an annotated bibliography in a peer reviewed journal, a citation that has also been provided. Enough.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

It's a humor book and not quotation marks about it. It's not a reference book nor claims to be and the book doesn't back up your claim and you just ignore citations that don't back what you want to write. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You are also deleting other cited material from published books and articles and are not improving on the article. We would undoubtedly both be blocked for edit warring and I don’t think it’s necessary to bring in a third party at this point. Looking at your edit history, we share a lot of the same interests and probably similar background knowledge. What other references can you find to expand this and make it better? It’s time to cool this off. I am adding references that are cited and give alternate meanings from other published works and statistical data about the history and usage of the name. Everything I have added is cited. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't acknowledge anything outside of the narrow bits you want. You're citing a humor book and even that doesn't back up what you are writing. 4 people is not a trend. One of citations call it a unisex name and even one or two (which isn't what you've given) don't negate all other sourcing. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

that the same website you are citing also has Buffy listed as a girl name 100% of the time which seems to arouse zero curiosity in you as the thing you believe has to put into this article is barely even a blip in the naming trends. Humor books are not a reliable source and still don't account for why it would negate all other sources. And the humor doesn't even say what you put into the book isn't gender specific since a girl can easily have the last name Buxton or Bundy. Also a nickname based on last name isn't given name and this article is very specifically about the given name Buffy and not any and all possible circumstances, specially ones just made-up by you. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

We can keep going on like this or you can try collaborating. The material I added is cited: additional definitions, possible origins of the name and nickname, government statistics on usage for both sexes, usage according to gender by given name, nickname, and stage name. The list of people alone demonstrates that it is a name that is used by both genders and has been a nickname for names other than Elizabeth. You are deleting cited material that supports facts that are relevant to the history and use of the name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't why it's so important about the 1971 stat. The Preppy Guidebook line is a joke so I don't get it a joke needs to treated so seriously. None of the examples are . I'm not trying to write that it's exclusively feminine, but that's true to any and all possible name and I don't get that single digit examples means the whole article must be reworded. I find you edits give a false impression greater that might come from without them. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

,,,,,,It’s part of the history and usage of the name. It’s also cited with two separate citations. It belongs there because it is fact. Now, it might be of value to also include statistics on the name from other countries. Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, etc. Other articles of this type are split into three sections: Etymology, Usage, and Cultural influences and then a list of people and fictional characters. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You aren't even doing that. It's a joke in a humor book. You haven't cited anything and the article has the information referenced. What's it like reading your case is as if wanted to change the population of a city or town and started posting obituaries or birth announcements to decrease or increase it and I'm foolish arguing the content of the obituary rather then stopping since that isn't how referencing works. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You are deleting cited information from published books, peer reviewed journals, and government statistics. While we disagree regarding the relevance of “The Preppy Handbook,” you are also deleting other cited material. Some things are common knowledge and the list of men and women with the name, nickname or stage name amply demonstrate that this is a primarily feminine name that has been in use for both genders and has various origins, which is what the lead that you keep reverting says. Strictly speaking, a reference isn’t necessary for what the list demonstrates, even though the citations back it up. You are not improving this article and you are demonstrating a refusal to collaborate. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

When and where was collaborate attitude from you since you ridicule the very idea of not being in total agreement with you and don't acknowledge any point I ever make and just repeat yourself? "Common knowledge" seem to latest version lack of sourcing? You cited source all Buffy a girl's name 100%. I get you don't acknowledge that, but doesn't make it any less true. You can just putting in a self-admitted guesswork and ignoring the cited source. You alone didn't just figured out something the researchers of those baby name books never could have. Cladeal832 (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It is a primarily feminine given name with occasional male use, as demonstrated by the list of males and females with the name and the statistics that are cited. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Not one source not backs the position, but actually the opposite. You can't cite your own research as a source by the rules of this website. Again, you just don't even engage in any point. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The example doesn't explain the origins of the name. I bothered to look it up and nickname based on physical attribute like being buff and isn't even the case all the time.Cladeal832 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ll say it again. There is a list of males — given name, stage name, nickname — who have been called Buffy. There is a citation on 1971 stats from the Social Security Administration and from a separate source showing said stats, It is demonstrably plain fact that it is an occasionally male name and primarily feminine name. It doesn’t need a source saying it’s male because there is a list of males, but there are also stats backing it up. Aside from that, you are deleting two additional sources that give other meanings for the name, both of which are properly cited. There is probably going to come a point when this needs to go to arbitration. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The citation also calls Buffy a girl's name 100% and selective citation isn't accurate. You write about self-evident and obvious and one of those is that any name can be applied to anyone, but single digit example of personal research doesn't negate all other multiple sources. We are at the point where you can acknowledge you repeating yourself isn't as powerful you seem to believe it is. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The only “personal research” involved was finding citations and adding them for definitions, citations, commentary and other articles about people named Buffy. I disagree with you on every point and dispute your revisions. This is going to need to go to dispute resolution. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, do you get the citation contradicts the point you are making. The baby names-type books don't back your claim. You finding a guy nicknamed Buffy for whatever reason doesn't negate the origins and use of the name. You don't engage in that. And rather rather collaborating, you gone even further in revisions. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I added a citation for a couple of different meanings of the name from two additional sources, which you have also been deleting for no apparent reason. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I've pointed to the reasoning so, so many times. The sources don't back up your point and also contradict the sources already cited. Your personal research on signle digit examples which don't state how they got the name isn't proof of a noteworthy trend. What you don't do is acknowledge that baby names books which contradict your position and also this is a given name and now adding last names. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The etymology of a surname is directly related to the given name. However, the other source you keep reverting that gives the meaning “buffalo” is for the given name. Statistics related to its use for boys is also relevant to the history and usage of the name. The list of males with the name is a plain fact indicating it has also been a male name. You are not improving the article by removing cited material that is relevant.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

So the Elizabeth stuff is just a side note rather the only definition used in the sourcing including the preppy humor book. You seem to only person to believe this about Buffy or otherwise you don't get why not other source for defining names don't also state this. You alone are defining it this way while all others don't so this isn't the "me versus you" stuff you want to make this into. You kept stating that stat again and again and don't acknowledge the point I've made. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The version that you keep reverting does indeed say it comes from Elizabeth and is a primarily feminine name. It also says it has occasionally been used as a male name, per the stats and list of males with the name. It is also a surname. The only thing I did was provide citations that you have been deleting all week. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't have anything about occasional males. That's your take from your own research. Again, the majority of sources don't get dismissed because you find one that agrees with your take which you haven't even done. The only thing you've done is ignore citations that disagree with your personal take. You don't even acknowledge the other sources. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I am talking about the two sources that list the 1971 stats showing six boys: the Social Security Administration and the other site. The other sources I am talking about are those that provide alternative definitions for the name. I do not disagree that the name can come from Elizabeth and it is usually a girl’s name. I was the one who added the source originally. Adding additional citations and possible origins doesn’t negate that. It expands on the history and use of the name. More information makes it a more in depth and interesting article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Your own source has Buffy as a girl name 100% of the time and you seem to be believe you can pick and choice which parts to acknowledge. You seem to just ignore that your own source takes it as insignificant.

Your second source (which you just found today so unsure how that applies to "all week") adds speculation that no other source has. You think your expanding, but speculation and spurious conclusions are not expanding. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to add additional sources. “Most sources say it originated as a pet form of Elizabeth (multiple sources); one source says it means “buffalo.” It is also a surname with different origins. See Buffy (surname).Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You are linking to an article that doesn't exist.

I'm not adding a bunch of sources to stratify just you. That's what the Talk Page is for. It doesn't improve the article and makes it overstuffed. That you don't care about other sources isn't the same thing as them not existing. Also your message is misquoting since one source speculates it came from Buffalo.

Also the article is about given names. You are on your fifth of sixth different attempt at this and still have acknowledge any previous error or misjudgments. I don't where this unacknowledged massive world you seem to think you've discovered of Buffy nicknames that you can't cite to anything beyond guesswork. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

You mention self-evidently true so the counter to that is that if it is so self-evidently true, why must it be included in the article. If logic or common sense are the reasoning , why bother since I just won't believe you alone are the only one with it and this article need to tells others through your prose about things that everybody could figure out. Cladeal832 (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I have not added anything that is inaccurate. Every single addition I added is cited. I was suggesting that an article about the surname be added since I encountered some existing articles about people with the surname Buffie. What you have been doing is removing cited material primarily because you dislike it. The Lansky book that defines it as “buffalo, of the plains” was cited. You deleted the citation, as you have citations giving statistics and other articles. You are not collaborating here or improving the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:37, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Restating your position again and again doesn't make it any more accurate or inaccurate. I'm going with the majority of citations or what citations actual state which you won't acknowledge or contend with. There is whole massive Talk Page and then write that I'm making these edits without any apparent reason. Cladeal832 (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

We don’t agree and this probably needs to go to arbitration. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree would be one thing. Acknowledgement and engagement was what I was looking for. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge your position but I do not agree. I have actively tried to address your concerns by finding additional citations from published sources. You deleted most of them. Neither of us has behaved well here and I’m not going to spend any more time edit warring. Give it a few days and maybe we can lay out the dispute for a third party and get another opinion. My guess is they will agree with you on some points and maybe me on others. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my concern. You just push past it and repeat yourself. Cladeal832 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

And you delete the cited information I add because you don’t like it. If I get the gist of what your argument is, it should be listed as a feminine only hypocorism because baby name books say it comes from a baby talk version of Elizabeth, there’s no reason to include cited information on statistical use for boys in 1971, cited information regarding the definition of the surname Buffey, cited information regarding stereotypes about the name because it is a “humor” book, a cited onomastics journal article that included an annotated bibliography that incorporated said humor book, cited news articles describing use of the name Buffy for pets such as Vladimir Putin’s dog, and a cited name dictionary that defined the meaning of Buffy as “buffalo.” Also verboten on your list is a reference to a man whose given name is Buffy and who is listed in a Wikipedia article about a basketball team. A citation from a news article regarding his later career as a motivational speaker was also deleted by you multiple times after I added them to expand upon and improve the article. It should also be noted that similar details are included in other name articles of this type. This needs to go to arbitration. You are refusing to collaborate. Give it a few more days. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I never wrote I didn't like it. Maybe read some of the posts. How many times to have to repeat this stuff. I'm not the one calling it a humor book. It is a humor book and quotation marks don't change that and the line is a joke. I found the statistic website and 6 out of millions people with the name is statistically insignificant not because of me, but the website. I deleted it because he doesn't have an article which I wrote at the time. I don't know your motives, but this isn't improving the article. You have been solely focused on making this into unisex despite no outside source backing it and keep find new and badly reasoning ways to back your take. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Did I list all of your objections or did I miss any? We don’t agree on their relevance. I explained why I think all of those cited facts are relevant and why I believe they should be included. Your general response was to delete most of the references and information I added and claim they are original research, personal opinion and bad writing and so on. I’ve always called Wikipedia “the nerd wars” because few other people would care enough to spend over a week arguing on a topic like this. We both behaved badly and I’m sorry for it. The only motive I have is to add interesting and relevant information to the article and improve on it. Let’s give it a few more days and talk it over again. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

When you write about how great you think you are and how you believe I am just here to ruin things, it doesn't come off as nice and sincere as you seem to think it does.

You already wrote I was removing stuff for no reason and then another time you wrote I was removing it because I just didn't like it. You still don't actually engage in any point I've made.

I deleted what the citations didn't support and gone into detail which you don't acknowledge. Cladeal832 (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You deleted a citation for the Social Security site with stats saying there were six boys named Buffy born in 1971. You deleted a citation for a name dictionary that defines the name as “buffalo; from the plains.” You deleted a citation for a book that gave the definition of the surname Buffey. You deleted two citations for the Preppy Handbook. You deleted a citation for a news article about the naming of Vladimir Putin’s dog, Buffy. You deleted a citation for an article about the guy named Buffy who is listed in the article about the basketball team he played on. I added those to try and demonstrate that the name is occasionally unisex and there are origins other than Elizabeth. You objected and I assume it’s because you don’t think they belong in the article or you genuinely think I’m pulling it out of the ether. We simply do not agree on what belongs in this article and another edit war won’t get us anywhere. Take a few days and we can lay it all out for a third party. I’ll write my argument, you say why I’m wrong and vice versa. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Maybe assume I deleted it because of the reasons I wrote so, so many times of why I have and yet still pretend it's for one reason except personal animosity. Four people of millions is insignificant and that's me, that the website you're citing's take as it Buffy listed as a girl's name 100%. That's not new information since I've written so, so many times yet you just double and triple down on your personal take. You haven't shown any source that Buffy is unisex and your own research of this or that random person's obit isn't the citable proof you believe it to you while ignoring all the already cited and reliable sources that list as feminine and don't have speculation on it possibly, perhaps, potentially having a ton of different origins, maybe, except nobody except you has found. Again this something I've written again and again and you just repeat your false assertions. I think you are drawing spurious conclusion based on half reading the citations or just a general "can we ever really know something" vibe speculation. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:09, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I know that’s what you think and I said why I disagree. To lay it out again: I agree that it is a primarily feminine given name and one of its origins is a pet name for Elizabeth. 2. It is also occasionally used for males, as is demonstrated by the men with the given name, stage name, or nickname and the fictional character that are listed in the article. The statistics I cited showing six boys with the name were born in 1971 is another example. I believe that is an interesting statistic that is relevant to the history and use of the name, even though the name is mostly female. 3. I believe other origins and definitions for the name are also relevant, which is why the facts from two name dictionaries should be included. I believe use of the name for pets is also relevant to the history and use of the name, which is why the article I cited about Vladimir Putin’s dog is relevant. You deleted all of those citations that I added in response to some of the arguments you made. We can keep going round and round or we can ask someone else to look at it. I know what you are arguing but I don’t agree with you. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

You ignoring and misconstruing what I write isn't quite the same as round and round. This isn't what I think. It is what is. The sources don't call it unisex and don't provide for this multiple origins you have speculated could possibly be true. You have found a single digit amount of nicknames to create this view where all the books are wrong . "Interesting" is doing a lot of work since you really believe nobody has seen the same stuff you are presenting and still written Buffy as pet name for Elizabeth as the origins. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

And again, we just don’t agree, which is why I am suggesting we put it in front of a third party. The sources I cited and you deleted are all real. The article has always said it’s a primarily feminine name that was derived from Elizabeth. It has also been used occasionally as a male name, per the list of male Buffys at the end of the article and the stats, and there are other definitions, per the cited name dictionaries. We disagree on their relevance. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Just typing "I disagree" without anything else isn't engaging in counterarguments. Opinion doesn't excuse feigned ignorance. The sources you cite don't back up what you are typing and what you are writing contradict what the majority of reliable sources state. That's not a matter of an opinion and acting like you alone suddenly uncovered all this information that nobody ever found or bothered to write down is (to use your word) ridiculous. Why all these sources don't even close to stating what you want to add and that statistical website consider your point insignificant isn't an opinion to agree or disagree on. A third-party won't change that you still haven't engaged with that.Cladeal832 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The information I added is supported by the citations which you deleted. Claiming they aren’t over and over again doesn’t make it so. We can certainly argue about the weight to give those facts or whether pet names or surnames or the “humor book” should be included, or whether the definition of “buffalo” in the Lansky book is as reliable as the definition in the Oxford name dictionary, or, as you say, that single instances of men with the name is too minuscule to be counted. I don’t agree. I think it’s part of the history and use of the name. All we can do is ask someone else to look at this and offer another opinion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't just restate it again and again. You cited stats website that consider the 4 (or it is 5 or 6 since that also keeps changing) insignificant and specifically has Buffy as a name for girls 100% on it and you can't just cite something when that source points out the opposite and use "I disagree" as an excuse. "I don't agree" isn't the rationale to just ignore things. Yes, I get you want to still put it in because if you squint enough to just ignore that part and focus on on 1973 (also ignoring all the earlier year without any Buffy yet you still maintain there is this long tradition of baby boys named Buffy). I don't write "I disagree" to your points on how "interesting" single digit blimp over 5 decades is or isn't. It's not my opinion it's a humor book, it's a humor book by both its own admonition and the categorization on Wikipedia. Unsure what the quotation marks are still doing around it. I write that your own sources don't agree with you and you are also ignoring any reliable sourcing that also doesn't agree. Well I guess you can and do, but that doesn't make in-line with Wikipedia policies. The humor book never mentions boys even without also pointing out it's a joke line. You never answer why nobody else has found these multiple uses of Buffy apart from yourself. It's not an unfair question to consider for yourself. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

And on and on and on. First of all, the article has always said it’s primarily female. The list of men called Buffy is reason enough to say it is occasionally male. The stat I cited was for 1971. Six American boys named Buffy were born that year according to the data. The Social Security Administration only lists five or more uses of a name in any given year. It has a searchable database going back to 1880. 1971 was the only year there were more than five. The male Buffy in the basketball team article list was born in 1973. I provided citations that said as much. You and I disagree on content and have been doing so for weeks. It is time to ask for a third opinion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Again you restate your position and don't engage in any point I've made. That isn't a subjective "opinions differ" you are portraying it to be. Cladeal832 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Disagreement is engagement. I explained my position above and why I think that information belongs there; you disagree with what I have said. I’m not spending another week in an edit war. If a third party says they agree with you, so be it. I will lay out the sources I would like to see included in a bulleted list in a few days and why I’d like to see them added. You can explain why they shouldn’t be and whatever else you’d like to add. I think either the third opinion board or another board dealing with content disputes makes the most sense. Do you have a preferred place to ask for a third opinion? Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Engagement is engagement. Just writing I disagree and not getting into why my points are incorrect to you is what you do. Cladeal832 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Which board do you prefer to ask for a third party opinion? We’re not getting anywhere here. It’s time to ask for someone else to weigh in. This is the last time I’m going to ask. If you don’t have a preference, I will go with the third party opinion board. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

So you didn't wait for response to just go ahead with your own preferences which isn't anything new. Again, you mention collaboration without anything to back it up and then blame me without taking notice of your own actions. You don't answer why the majority of sources don't concur with your take and how those sources reach their own takes since the information you provided isn't new. You don't ever explain how finding rando single-digit examples is the original research which isn't allowed yet insist be included. You don't cite any source explaining the origins of the Buffy De or whoever else's name yet insist it must be another unisex hypocorism. No given name article lists 4 examples from 5 decades ago and you're not putting it in to "interesting," but to back up the false and misleading edits you were already making even more I showed you the Social Security website. You were already insisting it was unisex before the humor book citation which doesn't even back your claims even without noticing it's a joke. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Third opinion request

i have posted the following on the third opinion board requesting that someone else weigh in: Talk:Buffy (given name). Disagreement over categories, content, and relevance of sources. 20:42, 16 October 2025 (UTC Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Summary of disputed facts

This disagreement began over dispute over a category. User:Cladeal832 takes the position that the article should be classified under Feminine hypocorisms. I countered that it should either be under Unisex hypocorisms, both Masculine hypocorisms and Feminine hypocorisms, or under simply Hypocorisms. There are also articles about men who were called Buffy on the list. User:Cladeal832 believes this does not count because most of the men listed used it as a stage name or nickname and the Oxford Dictionary of Names said it is a feminine name that is derived from a small child’s attempt to pronounce Elizabeth.

The content dispute also includes disagreement over certain sources, as the edit history of the last week shows. I added a news article that described the naming of Vladimir Putin’s male dog, Buffy, in 2010. User:Cladeal832 deleted this. I also added a citation for the Social Security Administration site, which includes downloadable statistics that show the name Buffy was used for six boys in 1971 but in no other year. I also included a link to a chart showing use of the name Buffy at the naming blog Nancy’s Baby Names. I also added a citation for the satyrical book The Official Preppy Handbook which included Buffy on a list of stereotypical preppy nicknames. This book is listed in an annotated bibliography that was published in a peer reviewed onomastics journal, which I also cited. I also added a citation for a baby name book by Bruce Lansky that defines the name as “buffalo, of the plains” and a citation for the Oxford Dictionary of Surnames, which gives a definition for the surname Buffey. User:Cladeal832 objects and deleted all of the above. User:Cladeal832 also deleted a listing for Buffy Coleman, who is listed in the Wikipedia article about the Harlem Wizards. I had cited a news article about Coleman’s later career as a motivational speaker which User:Cladeal832 also deleted. We both went into detail about our arguments above and I’m sure User:Cladeal832 will further expand upon them. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Not even close to true. This user kept adding information that wasn't cited, incorrectly summarized what the citation actually stated and ignored all other citations.

He didn't cite the humor book to show this was male given name in a sighificant way which isn't what the book even stated and ignored that it was humor book and the line was clearly a joke not to be taken seriously. The government stats website (which currently unavailable due to shutdown) clearly states Buffy is used as girl's name 100% and other contributor wants to write the opposite use because he believes it is "interesting" despite wanting to make the same addition even before I showed the other contributor the website. Lansky's book has a line about "speculation" about Buffalo origins which isn't in any other source. He states because because Buffey (not even spelled the same) can be a last name, but it must be the origins of the first name ignoring that the cited source doesn't state anything close to that and all the reliable source call it as a pet form of Elizabeth like Liz, Beth, etc..

There's a MASSIVE amount of back and forth and unsure why repeat it. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

That is not an accurate summation, but this is an example of why this is at a standstill. Here are examples of some of the disputed details:

• Buffy or Buffie is a primarily feminine given name and hypocorism. It originated from a small child’s lisping attempts to pronounce Elizabeth. It is also in use as an independent given name.
• Buffy' or Buffie is a primarily feminine given name and hypocorism for various names.
• It is also in occasional use as a masculine name and hypocorism. | last = Lawson

| first = Edwin D. | author-link = | title = Nicknames: An Annotated Bibliography | journal = Names: A Journal of Onomastics | volume = 38 | issue = 4 | pages = 323-363 | date = December 1990 | orig-date = | language = English | url = https://ans-names.pitt.edu/ans/article/view/1257 | jstor = | doi = | id = | mr = | zbl = | jfm = }}</ref>

• The name was also used for six American newborn boys in 1971, the only year to date in which the name was used for more than four American boys.
• The television program also popularized Buffy as a preppy nickname for various names, particularly surnames such as Buxton and Bundy that are used as given names.
• *Buffy “Mr. Magic” Coleman (born 1973), American motivational speaker and former player for the Harlem Wizards

Oddly you are confirming exactly what I already wrote.

Last names dictionary makes no mention of first names.

There is Puppy Handbook which has no mentioned of masculine and also a joke. http://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Official_Preppy_Handbook/urpW9sL1F3kC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Birnbach,+Lisa+(1980).+The+Official+Preppy+Handbook.&dq=Birnbach,+Lisa+(1980).+The+Official+Preppy+Handbook.&printsec=frontcover Cladeal832 (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps we should let a third party weigh in? Yes, these are the disputed edits. We disagree regarding whether they should be included and on their significance and notability for this article. I think they belong in the article. You do not. I’ve said why above. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't get how you can write whatever you like, but when I point out your inaccuracies, you suddenly feel the need for a third-party as if in your head you're the only one that can make any points. You making things up not in the citations isn't the same as a a disagreement. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Part of it is that you are consistently misinterpreting what the citations and what I added actually say. I’m not sure if you are simply not looking at them. This is the exact entry from Lansky’s book: “Buffy (American): buffalo; from the plains. Bufee, Bufey, Buffee, Buffey, Buffi, Buffie, Buffye, Bufi, Bufie, Bufy.” This is exactly what my addition said. Lansky’s book is the one other source (in addition to the Oxford English dictionary definition in the sentence before it) that suggested an American English definition of “buffalo.” I suppose we could change “suggested” to “defined” but the information is exactly the same. You deleted that properly cited source. The surname dictionary also says exactly what I said it did, as did the other citations. This is a content dispute and one for which I would think you would also welcome a third party opinion. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Women

Given name

• Buffy Lawson, American country western singer
• Buffy Tyler (born 1978), American Playboy playmate
• Buffy Wicks (born 1977), American politician
• Buffy-Lynne Williams (born 1977), Canadian Olympic rower

Nickname

• Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900–2002), the queen consort of Great Britain, who had the nickname Buffy as a child
• Dorothy Buffum Chandler (1901–1997), American cultural leader, was nicknamed Buffy or Buffie or Buff
• Buffie McFadyen (born Liane McFadyen), American politician
• Buffy Sainte-Marie (born Beverley Santamaria in 1941), American musician, artist, and activist
• Buffy Williams (born Elizabeth Williams in 1976), Welsh politician

Stage name

• Buffy Chen (born Chen Yan-fei in 2000), Taiwanese actress

Men

Given name

• Buffy “Mr. Magic” Coleman (born 1973), American motivational speaker and former player for the Harlem Wizards

Stage name

• Buffy Dee (born Anthony DeSantolo; 1923-1995), American actor, musician and Miami bar owner
• Buffy (rapper) (born Kim Ju-hyeon, 1995) member of South Korean band MADTOWN
• Darren Robinson (rapper) (1967–1995), also called Buffy, a member of the rap trio The Fat Boys

Fictional characters

Female

• Buffy, the sister-in-law of Mike Motley in the 1976–2000 comic strip Motley's Crew
• Buffy Driscoll, a main character and Andi's best friend on Disney Channel's Andi Mack
• Buffy Gilmore, a main character in Scary Movie
• Ava Elizabeth “Buffy” Patterson-Davis, the twin sister to Jody on the 1966 TV series Family Affair
• Buffy Summers, the title character in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer media franchise

Male

• Buffy and Muffy Vanderschmere, animated fox characters in the Disney series TaleSpin

Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Hello! I'll be attempting to provide a third opinion for this dispute between Bookworm857158367 and Cladeal832. I have never interacted with this page nor either of these editors. There's been a lot written by both of you, so it might take me a while to read and reply to it all. There seems to be a dispute on whether to categorise this as "feminine hypocorism" or just "hypocorism" but also a dispute about whom to list on this page; please correct me if that's incorrect. For the latter, I would like to begin by bringing attention to WP:NAMELIST which states that articles on people should be listed at the disambiguation page for their given name or surname only if they are reasonably well known by it. I'll think about this some more and reply more fully once I've read most of the dispute, but I would suggest that if the name "Buffy" (or an obvious variant like Buffie or Buffy) isn't mentioned in an article's body, there's a reasonable chance the subject might not be well known under that name. An alternative test is to ask "would someone looking for that person look for them under this name?". I have no opinion as yet on the categorisation matter. lp0 on fire () 14:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly relevant but I would suggest that in future debates you consider using the {{outdent}} template to make long strings of replies more readable. I'll post my opinions on the dispute after I've read it. lp0 on fire () 14:59, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your taking the time to look at this and I am sorry it is so hard to read. Hypocorism has an article as well as categories. I tend to see this as an article about the etymology, history and usage, and cultural influences on use of the name as well as a list of people with the given name, nickname, or stage name. This is the same format I’ve used for dozens of other name articles.

Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

No problem! I'm right that it's just the two disputes? I think I'll discuss the categorisation issue first since that seems to be the main issue, and hopefully in resolving it some progress can be made in the content dispute.

The Wikipedia guideline (WP:CAT#D) is nice and helpful here, telling us that editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include, so that's not exactly going to provide a clear resolution.

I definitely think the article should be included in feminine hypocorisms, since that's a defining characteristic (the name is overwhelmingly more notable as a feminine hypocorism and indeed would not be independently notable as a masculine name). Being a masculine hypocorism might be a characteristic of the given name Buffy, but it certainly isn't a defining characteristic. Which leads us to the nice helpful guideline above.

Since there clearly isn't a neutrality issue here, we are left with WP:CATV as the most obviously applicable guideline. While it will obviously be true that on at least one occasion in history a man has been called Buffy as a pet name, the guideline is actually quite strict here: It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Thus, unless the use of Buffy as a masculine hypocorism is actually documented in the article (not just in reliable sources), the article shouldn't be in that category.

I'm aware that I haven't actually given my overall opinion on either of the two disputes yet, but I think I've mostly reduced the two issues to one issue by showing that one depends largely on the other, which is a start. I'll have to think (and read) some more before commenting on the other dispute, but do let me know what you think so far. lp0 on fire () 16:34, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. I’ll be happy to go with whatever you conclude. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'm mostly ready to give an opinion.

1. I'd like to say that most of my advice is synthesised from WP:D, WP:APOS, and WP:CAT.
2. On the issue of who merits inclusion in the list, the inclusion criterion given at WP:APOENTRIES is quite low, so I think all the people on the talk page should be included, with the exception of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon since she isn't referred to as Buffy in her article.
3. Regarding the organisation of names, I don't have a strong opinion about splitting it up into male and female, though I'd suggest that might result in several sections which are each too small, especially for the fictional characters. Whichever section ends up containing Buffy Summers, she should be listed first in it per WP:DABORDER.
4. This is beside the point, but I'd like to comment that some of the formatting in the list is wrong. Only one link should be given per item in the list, and there shouldn't be citations.
5. This means that "motivational speaker" has to go from the description of Buffy Coleman, and I'd also suggest clarifying what sport he plays.
6. As remarked above, the name is primarily notable as a feminine hypocorism, which is its defining characteristic (in the sense of WP:CAT#D), and as such the article should be included in that category.
7. The article should not be included in the category of masculine hypocorisms, due to the WP:CATV issue detailed above, but this should change if a man who is referred to hypocoristically as Buffy is added to the list.
8. On the issue of the infobox, it seems like common sense that it should say "dominantly female" or something similar; calling it unisex would not be WP:DUEWEIGHT. Calling it "female" would be incongruent with the list of names if Buffy Coleman is included, but is probably fine otherwise.
9. Since several of the people here don't have Buffy as their given name and there's no other article on the name, I think this article should be moved to Buffy (name). That might seem outside the scope of the dispute, but it seems worth mentioning.

I think that's all, and I hope it's helpful. lp0 on fire () 18:43, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Moving the article to Buffy (name) makes sense to me and it would encompass the information on the surname and names for pets as well as the nicknames, given names, and stage names. We’ll have to discuss it further. Thank you so much for weighing in. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with some these takes for the reason I looked at other pages and simply having a few male examples isn't the only citeria since of course any boy can be named anything they want or their parents want. There's all "A Boy Named Sue" song to get this idea across. All the male examples for this page so far are nicknames or pseudonyms including related to being "buff" and are more similar to the article for the nickname Fatty which isn't categized as male or female and there much fewer examples then a lot of other articles on given names categorized as feminine.

You made a big stink about about Buffy being a first name and a last name so it doesn't make sense to move it since this is about the given name and the two have different origins.

I just wish in the "seems like common sense" stuff is an answer to why none of the sources explaining name origins agree with this take as none of this is new information. Seems like common sense that 4 o 5 examples of men with actual names like Darren or Anthony aren't helpful to explaining the origins and prevalent trends of this name.Cladeal832 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

My main takeaway is that there are a lot of potential origins, as is usually the case with names. The nickname might have come from the word “buff,” meaning physically fit, in some cases. In others, it’s a baby talk version of Bethie. In the case of one woman on the list, it was short for Buffum. Someone else might have thought the little girl on A Family Affair was cute and named or nicknamed their kid after her. Sometimes it means “buffalo.” Maybe it’s a family surname. Move it to Buffy (name) and include all of the information about cultural associations and etymology. I concede that it can be listed under feminine hypocorism as a category. I do not agree to leaving out the other cited information above. Someone has weighed in and offered a third opinion that sounds reasonable to me. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This is another article I just put together about a name that developed along similar lines: Muffy (given name). In that case, it’s often a nickname for names starting with M. Here’s another Mary/Margaret/Martha nickname: Marnie (given name). This is a combined given and surname article: Dutton (name).Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

None of this improves the article. You can't just say whatever you like and ignore all the cited and reliable sources. "Can we really knew anything" is not the attitude for contributing to an online reference website. Isn't also just as logical that Buffy like Beth, Betty, Liz, etc... originated with Elizabeth and others heard it, like it and used it without multiple origins. Speculation isn't a narrow and precise form of reasoning so you shouldn't just use it to make-up whatever you like. This isn't just guesswork and speculation because otherwise go and write up a blog post for that kind of stuff. Other people have taken the time to research and write and publish that research and for all your lamenting about this or that of yours being deleting, you don't have the same issue when it comes to others work.

Also unsure how come it's me that finds out this, but your basketball player is also a nickname. His real name is Buffate Ryfalle Coleman.

. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I didn’t go out of my way to do a deep dive on him. His website and the local news articles call him Buffy. He might be notable enough for an article in his own right. Someone made a documentary and there have been multiple articles in regional papers. I’m not interested in basketball and don’t feel like writing one. But if his name on his birth certificate is Buffate, it’s yet another example of the multiple origins of the name and nickname and for the lead: “Buffy is a primarily feminine given name and hypocorism for various names.” That’s plain fact if you look at the list. It’s also reason to move the article to Buffy (name’). Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Giving the origins, let alone speculation on potential origins, of any and all individuals who are named or nicknamed Buffy is neither realistic nor an improvement to the article. Cladeal832 (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

The sentence does neither. It states the plain fact that Buffy can be a hypocorism for various names, as is evident from the list of people at the end of the article. It was a nickname for Elizabeth, Beverly, Buffum, Buffate and the like and likely others. It’s not only an Elizabeth diminutive. We have a third opinion, which I suggest we follow. I also want to add the additional definition from the Lansky dictionary. Let’s discuss. I don’t think another edit war would be productive. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Yet the third opinions are not concurring what you are proposing.

I made my points and I think they are fair ones and third, fourth or fifth opinions don't just negate that i.e. I got you hadn't cited anything to make Buffy a male hypocorism and didn't require somebody else to tell me and the inclusion of the male hypocorism category was the entire origin point of this. Again, anybody who could possibly ever use the name Buffy is not a realistic way or comprehensive way to approach the article. Buffy Sainte-Marie's real given names are Beverley Jean (which I guess means Beverly without an extra 'e' don't count), but her parents didn't invent the name Buffy since it existed before their daughter was born nor does anybody else who uses it. The current versions of the article never used words like exclusively, solely, only, etc..., but it also doesn't need to mention since Buffy started as a pet form of Elizabeth and then briefly a more trendy name for girls that any person can use it regardless of real names or genders or whatever else. That's self-evidently true of any given name. I could kind of get this more for a Corey, Kim or Casey situation, but I, nor your other opinions on the Talk Page nor the "good" sources, are buying your single-digit examples are enough to warrant inclusion of all these opinions you add. The article is suppose to deal with actual verifiable information.

The other opinions made the point about "good" sources and "bad" sources and what the sources actually have in them. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there are a few issues at play here, but it's worth bearing in mind WP:SYNTH as well as Verifiability, not truth. If (a proportion of) the sources discuss Buffy as a given name in parallel with its use as a surname or nickname, then the article should discuss the whole name. If no (good) sources discuss the given name and the surname or nickname (i.e. if each source only discusses one of them) then moving the article to Buffy (name) would be synthesis of sources and should not happen. However, if the article stays at Buffy (given name) then the examples of its use as a nickname should be removed since they clearly don't fall under that scope.

Similarly, if sources describe Buffy as a hypocorism of Elizabeth it should say as much in the article, whereas if they mention it referring to other names, the article should say that (although it should still clarify that it's primarily a hypocorism of Elizabeth, per WP:DUE). lp0 on fire () 15:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

It has multiple origins. As a feminine nickname, it is probably primarily from Elizabeth. Its use as an independent name is probably mainly due to A Family Affair. The character’s real name was Elizabeth. Buffy Sainte-Marie is actually a Beverly, so it’s been used as a nickname for other given names. It is also a surname that is derived from a French place name, per the Oxford dictionary on surnames. The nickname or stage name has multiple origins, per the list of people on the page. Whether it should be split into separate articles called Buffy (nickname), [[Buffy (surname)][ and the current Buffy (given name) or folded into one single article called Buffy (name) is a subject for debate. The latter would be most simple and probably easiest for people to reference.Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

You're ignoring you don't have "good" citations for your assertions. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I do. You are simply ignoring them because you dislike them. I cited the dictionary definition for the surname. And, if you are going to insist upon it, I’m sure I can find sources describing how each person on that list acquired the nickname Buffy. They are likely going to have multiple origins. On the other hand, it’s plain fact just looking at the list. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You don't and it's odd you don't get you don't. Oxford has a dictionary for given names and you are ignoring that. No, you can't just make this leap that the surname and given name are exactly the same in origins as you have to ignore reliable source after reliable source to do so. "They are likely" and "plain facts" are your go-to time and again, but even the others having been trying to get you see that isn't enough and the stuff you wish to add are not supported by citations and please try to understand that the people who researched and published these citations knew the information you keep going back to, but got your personal take wasn't how explanations for given names works. You sought other opinions, they pointed out some of the exact same things I've been pointing out to you, and you have doing the same thing of repeating yourself without incorporating anything else pointed out in the wrongness of how you want to contributor to this article. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You act as if these reference books don't have your insider knowledge or critical thinking skills. There are names, girls names, in the Oxford given names books which mentions starting out as last names i.e. Meredith or Shirley, but Buffy isn't one of them and it's not because the writers forgot or sabotage from me or whatever else you might use to dismiss it. You makes these appeals to "reasonable answers" while ignoring any other ones that don't fit what you want i.e. every single person ever personally named Buffy doesn't get an origin mentioned on the Wikipedia article or single-digits you find online when a name is used millions of times are not a trend, let alone of significant trend for the purposes of a reference article. Cladeal832 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

If we include information on the surname here or in a linked article called Buffie (surname), the surname dictionary definition applies. The name can be a nickname for multiple names, which is what the sentence says and which is evident from the list. We’ve spent two weeks arguing over a sentence that is as evident and banal as “Water is wet” and for which references exist. We can list them individually: “Buffy Sainte-Marie was born Beverly.” (Citation)Bookworm857158367 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You can't just write it and make it so. You are linking to an article that doesn't exist. Again, you don't even engage with the point of why the same publisher, Oxford, makes no mention of the last name in it when they do for other names beyond "water is wet"? Water is wet, well last names and first names can have different origins is pretty self-evident too.

Water is wet is self-evident. The origins of the name Buffy are not self-evident and clearly researched by people with a degree of expertise in this rather then relaying on one Wikipedia editor's flawed guesswork. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

You misspelled Buffy Sainte-Marie's real name. Cladeal832 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It is self evident that the name is a nickname for various names when there is a long list of people at the end of the article for whom it is a nickname for various other names. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Self-evident is any name can be a nickname or given to anyone, but also self-evidently it doesn't mean it gets mentioned on any and all articles about given names. It is not random single-digit examples added with a bunch of supposition and ignoring of clear facts in reliable sourcing. This is like trying to change population listed of a town or city based on posting obituaries of a local resident. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Except we are not talking about a random sampling. We are talking about a list of people named or called Buffy who are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles and to be referenced at the end of this article. Hence, it is self-evident, plain fact to anyone scrolling to the end of the article that it is used for names in addition to Elizabeth and it is in use for both males and females. The only reason not to put a sentence to that effect in the lead: “a hypocorism for various names” is sheer orneriness. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You posting a single obituary as if this is major proof that all reliable sources are wrong is very much random examples. Anybody who uses the name didn't invite it nor a trend of one. That's a plain fact and self-evident (see I or anyone else that use clichés too). Again, even the 3rd opinion didn't change anything as you ignore and disengage them too. Cladeal832 (talk) 04:52, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

I concede that it can be categorized as a feminine hypocorism. I do not concede that you can delete the line from the article that notes it is a given name and hypocorism for various names, which is demonstrated vybthe list of people with various given names who used Buffy as a nickname or stage name. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You conceded something that was completely obvious after a needless prolonged time and it made even more explicit how your initial position was inaccurate just in case you had forgotten. That was too harsh, but I'm leaving it in since I don't think it's irrelevant to this some collaboration you profess to want while not doing much of anything to actually do. Still, that's great and I'd never not nice to take a point conceded and acknowledged. You keep mentioning "self-evident" and "common sense" and I keep thinking to myself what world is this other person living with all these guys running around named Buffy that this article has overlooked until you came along. If was so self-evident you wouldn't have to keep trying to find singular examples that are still in the single digits who do not pre-date the origins and popularization of Buffy as a name for girls. If you keep having to cite some statistical blip from over 5 decades ago, it's not in any way self-evident. You still haven't even tried to addressed why the others don't agreed with your take. You still acting as if there is some super secret text that only seem to able to read since if these books and other resources wanted to confirm your position, they would have. They list unisex names or names with various origins including originally surnames yet nothing on Buffy. Please don't repeat already discredited examples i.e. Oxford last names having Buffy meaning it has to be part of this article despite the same Oxford publisher on first names makes zero mention of it. That's relevant as the third-opinions sought out yourself have tried to make take in consideration. Reading it, admitting you read it and not doing anything to alter is not the consideration or collaboration. Cladeal832 (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

We disagree. I have said why I disagree. There is a long list at the end of the article of people named or nicknamed Buffy for various other names. They are notable people. Single digit examples are still relevant to the history and use of a name, particularly when their articles are referenced in the article about their name. It is plain fact. You have spent close to a month removing the citations I added from published works including from the peer reviewed journal on names that cited the “Preppy Handbook” in an annotated list, statistics from a government agency, the fact that it is also a surname with different origins, and an alternative definition of the given name. I don’t see anyone other than you here arguing that these details should not be included. In fact, they are presented and properly cited in dozens of other name articles of this type. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

I disagree is not the absolution you think it is. There has to be more to it than two words where one of them is "I."

It's an odd point to make that this just me disputing this since you are the only one wanting to add it and your outside opinions also didn't agree with you and counselled you on sourcing and citations rather than "it's just has to be true"-style rationales.

You make statements. I point out how you mispresenting and outright inaccurate. You repeat yourself as I wrote nothing beyond "I disagree" without explain (repeating your original point isn't explanation or engagement). Rinse and repeat again and again. I point out the plain fact you're misrepresenting your Oxford examples and "I disagree" doesn't negate that.

Also it's inaccurate to type it's been a month. This first dispute with over the categories which you conceded and then you want to totally reformate the article and add a bunch of new stuff i.e. Buffalo despite not even resolving the initial dispute. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

The history... Buffy or any name doesn't start anew each time a person uses them. These aren't in dispute, but to make a point, that it came from Elizabeth is verifiable in reliable sourcing, that it popularized in the late 1960s/early 1970s from a character on a TV show is verifiable in reliable sourcing, that it associated with snobby Valley Girl is verifiable in reliable sourcing. Verifiable is the standard of this website and verifiable isn't the same as typing "plain fact" or "self-evident". You make these arguments as if I'm the one who wrote these sources and I'm not even the one who added these citations, but I'm not going to throw them out over your independent research (again independent research isn't allowed on this website). The single-digit isn't a me standard, it's every other resource on this including the stats website you are basing most of this around. Is there any name you would consider feminine or masculine since it is a safe bet there are singular examples of the opposite gender who use those names yet they aren't included as unisex. If you don't like that, stop on this one particular name and make the case on the overall idea that most any name is unisex if you can find examples on the category page. The standard right now is not what you personally like. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

What we are arguing over now are these “verifiable” facts:

• The Oxford dictionary of surnames that lists Buffey as a surname and gives a definition. You removed a sentence that said the name is also a surname with different origins.
• A name dictionary that gave the alternate definition of “buffalo; of the plains” and assigned an American English origin. You also removed a sentence that one other source assigned this meaning.
• A cited statistic noting that the name was used for six American boys in 1971 and a sentence noting that the name is in occasional use as a male name.
• The division of people or fictional characters named Buffy under “male” and “female.”
• A sentence indicating that the name is a nickname for various given names other than Elizabeth, demonstrated by the same list mentioned above and supported by the Preppy Handbook and the annotated bibliography in the peer-reviewed name journal that cited the preppy handbook.

All of the above are verifiable sources, properly cited. You removed all of them for reasons which I oppose. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No, they are no verifiable and just saying it so don't make so.

• Because this is an article on given names, not last name. Oxford has a dictionary for first names which includes names which originated with last names i.e. Meredith and Shirley , but not Buffy.
• A name dictionary speculated yet might come from Buffalo yet no other backed that up.
• The website specifically also has that Buffy was a girl was 100% of time
• The gendered division was only a more recent and the third opinion you sought explain the flaws of it.
• You find a random example. Buffy involved into an unique name outside of Elizabeth is already in the article. You just want to add it to implied and outright state you haven't been able to back up.

The thing, if I believed you were adding was actually true, the "common sense" and "self-evident" might work more. Except you are not adding accurate information. The article is here is very possible person with this and even the connections you make are inaccurate and against the reliable sources and just common sense of this world where there is sighificant. One, the standard is one example. You can find an example with any possible word and there isn't a given name page. Buffy has an article because a significant amount of people, specifically girls as the stats website you are cherry-picking points out, have it.

Cladeal832 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

The surname dictionary gives a definition for the surname Buffie. It is not the same book as the book on first names.

This website includes a graphic showing use of the name for both girls and boys . It shows that it was used for six boys in 1971 and in no other year. It is primarily a name for girls, but usage for boys is relevant to the history and use of the name. The same stats are downloadable at the Social Security Administration website, which has stats going back to 1880. To find the stats, you search under the category Beyond the Top 1,000: https://www.nancy.cc/baby-name/buffy/

the Lansky book gives a different definition, which is why the sentence you keep deleting notes it is according to one source.

These are verifiable and the Oxford Surname Dictionary in particular is an impeccable source. These are all items that belong in the article. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You want to include 4 examples? Seriously, for all the use common sense, plain fact and self-evident, 4 of out millions of times from over 5 decades ago is the most self-evidently, plain-fact, common sense insignificant piece of trivia. Why not include data from 1970 or 1972 too. You don't because you want to include it to make it seem like it's unisex in use despite all the sourcing (including your Buffalo one) not backing that up.

The article isn't suppose to be written like a mystery novel with clues and "one source differs." It's a synoecize of all sourcing including the ones you disregard. The one source isn't the only issue (by the way what article on Wikipedia has this kind of "but one sources tells a different story" as it's a campfire ghost story). It's the source itself calls it pure speculation without any follow up as to where and why that speculation exists.

If you want to write up an article on the last name Buffie (it will probably be removed), use that last name book a source. The Oxford last name book never mentions anything about it as a first name. It does for other last entries entries like Charles, Martin or Thomas. The authors of the book didn't just exclude first names waiting for you to pick up the clues to make these connections to write up on Wikipedia. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Data about usage of the name is relevant. It is a matter of your opinion that they are too trivial to be included. The Social Security Administration lists five or more uses of the name. There were six American boys named Buffy in 1971; four or fewer in other years so they aren’t listed. The information you keep deleting says as much. The article already mentions usage patterns for girls.

Information about the surname is also relevant and is cited. The name has multiple origins. There are articles about people with the surname Buffie so no, an article about the surname would not be deleted. It should arguably be combined with this one as other such articles are. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

So why data specifically from 1970 or 1972 or 2018 then? Cladeal832 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)