User talk:Horeki/Archive 5
| This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not a Wikipedia article or the talk page for a Wikipedia article. If you find this page on any website other than Wikipedia, you are looking at a mirror site. This page may not be up to date, and the user who made this page may have no relationship with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page can be found at https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Horeki/Archive_5. |
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
| Archives |
|---|
Sort keys change
Why did you add sort keys to various articles on Korean people? When the sort you want is the same as the article title, it doesn't need a sort key. Also, if the sort key is the same for all categories, it's simpler to use a defaultsort instead of putting the key on each category. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- The obvious implied answer is that I was wrong ...?
- FIRST. As a long-term strategy: I was creating a context for future cut-and-paste articles about South Korean footballers. My best guess was that some of the problems with Korean categories would be mitigated by the consistent use of Template:Korean name.
- SECOND. As a short-term strategy:, I was trying to fix a peculiar set of problems I discovered in Category:North Korean politicians and Category:South Korean athletes. For example, not all the Kims were clustered in a "K" section, nor were they in alphabetic order.
- Do I need to explain more?
What needs to be done next? --Horeki (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Were you encouraging me to do something like this here? --Horeki (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that is better. I wouldn't say what you did was wrong, just adding things that might not need to be there. The Korean name template is definitely helpful. For the sort key, if the sort order you want is the same as the name of the article, you don't need any sort keys -- not on the individual categories and not in a defaultsort. If you want to specify a sort key anyway, it's simpler to use just a defaultsort. Defaultsort applies to all categories that don't have a key specified. So as far as what needs to be done next... the keys aren't hurting anything, but I'd take them back off and not put any more on. Does that make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes.
and no -- please try to explain againPlease allow me to re-state the problem. In articles about non-royal Asian people, I take it for granted that we want the sort to be based on the last name first and then the first name in alphabetical order. I would have thought this is agreeable and uncontroversial, yes?
Compare Template:Chinese name, Template:Japanese name, Template:Korean name, etc. with the categories which are linked, yes?
In this specific instance, I began because I looked forward to developing a foundation for working with
- Does this explain how I backed into this problem? ---Horeki (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes.
- Yes, that is better. I wouldn't say what you did was wrong, just adding things that might not need to be there. The Korean name template is definitely helpful. For the sort key, if the sort order you want is the same as the name of the article, you don't need any sort keys -- not on the individual categories and not in a defaultsort. If you want to specify a sort key anyway, it's simpler to use just a defaultsort. Defaultsort applies to all categories that don't have a key specified. So as far as what needs to be done next... the keys aren't hurting anything, but I'd take them back off and not put any more on. Does that make sense? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- Were you encouraging me to do something like this here? --Horeki (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don't know if that explains it, because I don't know which of the edits of those users are relevant here.
Yes, we want articles about people to be sorted by surname then given name(s). (Surname or family name is a better term than "last name". That is because the given names are sometimes last.)
The name templates you mention give information for readers who aren't familiar with names in a given language. The sort keys (or "category keys" as you call them in some of your edit summaries) control the order in which the articles are listed in categories. The two things do not affect each other. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Aha -- thanks. You explain what I did not understand well enough. You also help me to use better vocabulary:
- Yes, I do understand that Template:Korean name or Template:Japanese name do not affect sort keys); but they are tools which need to work well together. I plan to link to this thread in future.
Maybe our discussion will help someone else to understand how Wikipedia works. I hope so. --Horeki (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Horeki. This article says Park was in the first division, and I seem to remember that you and I agreed first-division players were "always notable". Although it looks from the table as though he was in the league for less than a year and scored no goals. Is this your rationale? Osiris (talk) 06:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is not a rhetorical question. A review of the change history will show that I have made this article as strong as I could. Is it enough? I don't think so. A Google-search produced only Wikipedia mirror hits, and the cite supports are only in Korean. Wikipedia is not following the reliable source; rather, Wikipedia is effectively creating notability. Is it not a core principle that Wikipedia should follow, not lead?
- Question: Is there likely to be more information added to this stub?
- Answer: Probably not.
- Without more, my guess is that this the fact that he is a professional athlete is proven, but it is not shown that he is a "notable" professional athlete.
My guess is that our rule-of-thumb should be modified. This causes me to think that J. League Division 1 players should be "almost always notable". Thoughtful judgment is sometimes required. In my opinion, this blp is not notable, in part because the information about Park Kyung-Hwan is so very hard to find.
In part, I am persuaded by the curious actions of the article's creator. For me, Nameless User has become a red flag. The change history shows no improvement in this stub since it was created here in 2010; however, an English Wikipedia stub was created here in 2012. Whatever is going on here is marginal.
Are these these the kinds of questions which justify a further investment of time and thought in a Request for Deletion discussion? Maybe? --Horeki (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- DJSasso seems to have decided that all pro soccer players are notable per se here? Always notable? No, as a general rule, I don't think so. --Horeki (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I wonder about this idea that all professional athletes are notable. There are different levels of professionalism. Are all professional models notable? Nameless User and Japan Football have both caused concern. Gotanda (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- DJSasso seems to have decided that all pro soccer players are notable per se here? Always notable? No, as a general rule, I don't think so. --Horeki (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/... posted 23 Sept
- Unsourced? created by Nameless User?
- Yutaka Azuma?
- Takahiro Endo?
- Daisuke Fujimoto? there is no en:Daisuke Fujimoto?
- Hideki Katsura?
- Kim Kwang-Ho? there is no en:Kim Kwang-Ho
- Lee Gook-Soo? there is no en:Lee Gook-Soo
- Ryang Yong-I? there is no en:Ryang Yong-I
Sorry, I'd forgotten about this. Perhaps you could nominate it for deletion via RfD? In most cases where the article is an old one, RfD is a better venue, where you can produce your arguments in full. I agree with what you've said. Osiris (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2012
- Perhaps this can wait until October. By then, I will have looked at more articles about Korean footballers. It may be reasonable to look at articles which have similar problems, including
- An Sun-Jin? see notability tag at en:An Sun-Jin
- Yoshiharu Horii?
Kim Jong-Song?- Park Kyung-Hwan?
- I see no reason to hurry. --Horeki (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- In our current SEWP context, my best guess is that just one very brief mention in any single reliable source is good enough to establish minimal notability. --Horeki (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Aha, an overriding convention is ipse dixit. --Horeki (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Categories need at least 3 entries change
Please don't create new categories unless there are at least three entries to put into them. Your new category Category:Municipalities in Tochigi Prefecture only has two entries.
Note that the chronology categories (like 1965 births, 2010 deaths, etc.) are exceptions to the 3-entry rule. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please notice that Tochigi, Tochigi has been created. This becomes a third city in this category. --Horeki (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I see that there are similar problems at Category:Municipalities in Japan by prefecture. I will work on this slowly over the next few weeks. --Horeki (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Interruption of initial sentence change
Because the first sentence is so critical, it should be kept clear of secondary information. That is why I ask for data, such as Japanese characters for names, to be placed in footnotes or references. Remember, they are literally unreadable to most users, and therefore do not help the comprehension of the article. See Motoo Kimura, and other Japanese scientists. Because they are important to science, they are most welcome on this wiki, because science is international. Unfortunately, understanding of the Japanese language is not so international! Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for sharing an interesting suggestion. I recognize that you present an arguable point-of-view. I have invited Gotanda to help us with his opinion -- see here. --Horeki (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Since Horeki asked, I'll join the discussion. I hadn't given this much thought before, but on examining this more closely, I tend to agree with Macdonald-ross. As important as the information may be for some users, it probably doesn't belong in the first sentence. On the other hand, I don't think it belongs in References either. Strictly speaking it isn't a reference and that muddies what is and is not a reference. Also, leaving it buried at the end doesn't help much. Ideally, if there is an infobox for the entry, I think it should go there somehow--prominent, but not disruptive. One other thing to consider is that Japanese, Korean, and Chinese may be most of the examples right now, let's consider all language systems equally. Look at Fyodor Tyutchev Cossack A.E.K._Athens_F.C. Yash Chopra N. T. Rama Rao. This will be a big job if we go ahead with a change to reduce these interruptions. Thanks, Gotanda (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree the info should be in the articles. Another case is the IPA symbols for pronunciation, which almost no-one understands without looking them up. They are useless IMO, especially in Simple. But the original language scripts are necessary, and the question is how to deal with them.
- On grounds similar to newspapers, novels and face-to-face meetings, the first words spoken or written are vital in setting the scene for what follows. In communication terms, the first sentence is absolutely critical. If I had my way, I'd ban dates and places from first sentences as well. All that stuff can wait. But there's a limit to what I can get colleagues to agree to!
- Options for the original language version of names are:
- Infobox if there is one.
- In-line references (simple to do). I already do this for (for example) Russian chessplayers.
- Notes section separate from refs. This is formally correct but, really, it causes no problem to put them in refs. Most users now will hover over the ref number and collect the info. In that sense, they are not 'buried at the end', but readily available if the reader wishes to know. If you have to create a Notes section, that's more work.
- Options for the original language version of names are:
- I don't suggest you redo all pages in Japanese or Chinese, etc. You might edit the very much smaller number of pages which you know have high readership. And when you put up new pages, you could put the info in a way which does not damage the first sentence. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Starting now, I will begin to use a variation of the model suggested at the top of this thread. I understand the reasons for Macdonald-ross's change to Motoo Kimura here; but I believe the nihongo template needs to be retained in the inline note as I have done here.
- IMO, when Macdonald-ross and Gotanda agree, I accept that a consensus opinion is established -- see change summary for this diff.
- While I am willing to comply with consensus reasoning, I cannot agree with it. The concept of "interuption" is flawed. In specific, the use of the nihongo template at the beginning of the first sentence of articles about Japanese people is not an interruption. Similarly, the use of Telugu at the beginning of articles about Telugu people is not an interruption.
- I do not think this consensus is a good decision -- nor is it better or best. In other words, I am not dissatisfied with the standard format which is mirrored across the majority of other wikis. For me, this wider consensus across all wikis is persuasive. For me, it is more compelling than the reasonable decision-making of two solid members of our small community.
- Bluntly, I believe the reasoning put forward my Macdonald-ross is mistaken; and Gotanda is mistaken in agreeing with it. However -- for now, I will follow their leadership and judgment.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
As we move forward, it seems likely that unanticipated consequences will become more important.
Perhaps these examples help establish a context for further discussion. This is workable, but is it good? better? best? --Horeki (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is getting rather long, but a few points, questions, clarifications.
- 1. There is no need to rush here. Three people and just a couple comments does not a consensus make. Perhaps others should be involved and this discussion should be on simple Talk. I certainly don't feel a consensus for the wiki has been reached.
- 2. Mac-ross wrote "Notes section separate from refs. This is formally correct but, really, it causes no problem to put them in refs." Actually, it really is a problem. References refer to sources. References is not the place to put unsourced additional information. If we go the References route, the very first example reference readers will see in most cases will not be a reference. This is a really bad and confusing example of what a ref should be.
- 3. "Most users now will hover over the ref number and collect the info." Maybe it's just my browser settings, but I don't see the language info when I hover over ref number. I see a link address.
- 4. I really think infobox is the way to go. More work, yes, but it can be a "going forward from here with new articles, and slow fixes to old ones". Incremental work wins in the end, I think. Update: See Naguib Mahfouz and Muhammad Yunus.
- 5. I agree with you, Mac. I hate the dates there too.
- Thoughts anyone? Gotanda (talk) 00:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- @ Gotanda, yes, thank you for distilling the thread into a few numbered points.
- 1. Yes
- 2. see Mohamed ElBaradei → using <ref group="note">?
- 3. ?
- 4. No. IMO, the infobox and/or navbox are not are useful only as supplements, not in lieu of the core information which belongs in the first sentence.
- 5. No
- IMO, this is not workable. It is not good, not better, not best.
- A. For some time, the conventional first sentence format has been used across the array of all wikis. IMO, the reasons for change in SEWP are not enough, not sufficient ... or perhaps I just don't understand the reasons yet.
- B.If agreement between Macdonald-ross and Gotanda were equal to "consensus", then I have provided examples of what happens by following their leadership. IMO, the value or usefulness of the proposed change is not validated by this experiment. If there is consensus, I do not agree with it although I try to go along with the group.
- C. The examples from List of Nobel Prize winners by country make up my argument against a proposed policy change. IMO, this tentative attempt to make things simpler is not helpful. At first, my initial resistance to change was intuitive. Now my disagreement is informed by the examples of the links listed above.
- D. In specific, I do not accept the premise of this thread's heading. If the presmise is valid, then I don't understand it yet. I do not accept the theory of "interruption" as a criticism of our conventional format in the first sentence.
- I respectfully disagree.
Please know that I am still willing to cooperate will the consensus.
I will continue to try to understand opinion of others who may not parse the issues as I do. --Horeki (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Stopping experiment with proposed change change
Mirroring the updated format of Mohamed ElBaradei here, I will invest time in extending this experiment to include
|
|
When work on this short list is finished, I plan to stop.
I will return to using the current standard format for articles about people who have not won Nobel Prizes.
IMO, a convincing argument for change is not yet made.
I will continue to try to have an open mind; and I want to participate in all on-going discussions. --Horeki (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I noticed your change to Ilya Prigogine with a note on the talk page referencing back here. I have to say I see no consensus to add in non-English names. I purposely do not include names in Russian, Arabic, Korean, or whatever because this wiki is written in English. As for the English wikipedia and others including this information in the opening, that is because their intended audience is different from ours. We need to keep our entries simple and easy to read.
- In addition to adding the Russian name, you chose to take 2 simple sentences and combine them into a complex sentence. That seemed an unneccessary, unhelpful and strange choice.
- I can see that this is an issue you feel strongly about. It appears from your last comment you do not intend to make more of these types of changes. I think this is a good idea. I do not read anything in what Mac or Gotanda said that would indicate either of them felt mass revisions needed to be made. Indeed they did not even agree on their preferred method of dealing with these foreign names. --Tbennert (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- @ Tbennert -- If you prefer two short sentences, fine -- no problem.
However, you argue that there is something "unnecessary", "unhelpful" and "strange" about a simple sentence with a conjunction in the predicate. Please think again about this.
According to our article about the sentence, a simple sentence is a type of sentence made up of just one clause. Please look again at equivalent beginnings for the article about Prigogine. As you do, please note that I removed his Belgian nobility title -- consistent with the cited source -- and I added inline cite support for the facts in this first paragraph of the article.
- @ Tbennert -- If you prefer two short sentences, fine -- no problem.
- Two SIMPLE SENTENCES (June 2012):Ilya, Viscount Prigogine (25 January 1917 – 28 May 2003) was a Belgian physical chemist. He won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1977.
- One SIMPLE SENTENCE (Sept 2012): Ilya Prigogine[note 1] (25 January 1917 – 28 May 2003) was a Belgian physical chemist and winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. <:ref>NobelPrize.org, "Ilya Prigogine"; retrieved 2012-9-19.</ref>
- For emphasis, please notice that my change was supported by the source which was linked. It may not be written exactly the same as you wrote it, but that's a different issue. Do you see that the subject of this thread is something else? --Horeki (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Talkback change
{{tb|Receptie123|ts=14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)}}
Reply to your question Receptie123 (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Dates change
Standard throughout English wiki and Simple is a view about the linking of dates. Dates should not be linked unless they are truly significant. So, in England, 1066 is notable as a year with three kings, and the year of the Norman conquest. Dates of birth and death are regarded as accidental, and therefore not notable.
The reason for this policy is that pages titled by years get huge and unwieldy if all dates are linked. The links become meaningless. I see many/all of your biographies carry linked dates. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Please allow me to refresh your memory about one of your own diffs in 2010 here.
- _____
- Clean-up of stubs about Japanese and Korean association football players is a Sisyphean task.
Yes, I understand and agree with the linked dates consensus. As a general rule, I do not add linked dates ... but clean-up is a different problem.My guess is that you are noticing linked dates which come from Nameless User and Japan Football. Each of these problematic Japanese contributors created cut-and-paste stubs at an average rate of more than one article every five minutes. There are hundreds of these stubs. The linked dates come from the many ENWP articles which were copied.
Thus far, I have been removing the linked dates from the first paragraph only. I am not looking at the infoboxes and tables.
Perhaps your note is posted because you noticed the changes I made today? If so, please understand that my first pass through the "K" section of Category:Footballers from Shizuoka Prefecture only adds a Japanese name headnote. I focus on clean-up "chunks" because the large number of stubs is otherwise overwhelming. For me, this is a way of underscoring that I'm just working on the "K" group in Shizuoka .... Do you see my point? It is a work strategy.
On the second pass through the "K' section, I make several changes, including
- add a nihongo template (name in English order + kanji + name in Japanese order + date of birth)
- standardize wording ("...is a Japanese professional Athlete. He is best known as an association football player.") + inline cite support
- mention whether the player evolved into a coach or manager + inline cite support
- mention international play + inline cite support
- add blp + enwp templates on the talk page
- Sometimes the cite support requires a bit of research ... and when the effort falls short, I add the name to the RfD list.
- IMO, the rapid creation of stubs by Nameless User and Japan Football has presented SEWP with problems to which we have no good answers.
I don't quite know how to parse the issues, and I don't quite know what could have been done differently in 2010? 2011? 2012?
IMO, the consensus which tried to affect this robot-like transfer was only tentative. You highlight one of several unanticipated consequences. This was only one of several problems which were not fully recognized or understood.
When or if this rapid cut-and-paste "bomb" happens again, I plan to be quick to urge a block to stop it. I have learned the hard way because of the time invested in cleaning up these stubs. It's a bit of a bore.
In part, I hope that this investment in clean-up will help me figure out how to propose a proactive/preventative policy which mitigates the harms caused by any new mass creation of new Japanese and Korean football stubs.
Do you have any suggestions? comments? --Horeki (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have removed linked dates in the table at Takahiro Endo which, as you know, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2012/Takahiro Endo.Please notice that a review of "A" though "I" at Category:Footballers from Shizuoka Prefecture shows no linked dates. Also, a review of Category:Footballers from Tokushima Prefecture shows no linked dates. --Horeki (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Aha, I see that this strategy is not practical. I will add Japanese name headnotes, but nothing more. --Horeki (talk) 17:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
A Barnstar for you! change
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
| You work tirelessly on Wikipedia.I think you should have this barnstar. Receptie123 (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks -- an unexpected surprise. --Horeki (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)