User talk:Horeki

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Were you encouraging me to do something like this here? --Horeki (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes. and no -- please try to explain again

Please 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

• User:Footwiks (Footwiks change history)?
• User:Almust (Almust change history)?
• User:Botend (Botend change history)?

Does this explain how I backed into this problem? ---Horeki (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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)[reply]

Aha -- thanks. You explain what I did not understand well enough. You also help me to use better vocabulary:

• Surnames or family names
• sort keys (:en:...sort order)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Category:North Korean footballers

• Kim Jong-Song?
• Kim Kwang-Ho? ... there is no en:Kim Kwang-Ho

Category:South Korean footballers

• An Sun-Jin? ... see notability tag at en:An Sun-Jin
• Lee Gook-Soo? ... there is no en:Lee Gook-Soo
• Park Kyung-Hwan?
• Ryang Yong-I? ... there is no en:Ryang Yong-I

I see no reason to hurry. --Horeki (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please notice that Tochigi, Tochigi has been created. This becomes a third city in this category. --Horeki (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. Infobox if there is one.
2. In-line references (simple to do). I already do this for (for example) Russian chessplayers.
3. 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

@ 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]