User talk:Refsworldlee

Archives
2 January – 14 April 2007 15 April – 22 July 2007 23 July – 23 October 2007 24 October 2007 – 17 January 2008 18 January – 10 April 2008 13 April 2008 – 29 July 2017 21 August 2017 – 26 February 2019 26 March 2019 – 18 September 2021 25 September 2021 – 15 June 2024

According to the article on shikona, a sumo wrestler's second name is a given or personal name, not a family name. New World Man (talk) 09:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irrespective of sumo naming conventions, the person we are talking about was christened 木村山 守 (Mamoru Kimura) at his birth in Japan, with his surname first and his given name last, as is Japanese convention. When translations are made into English, the conventions reverse, so that he would then become Kimura Mamoru. However, in his case he chose to take on a singular elder name (Kimurayama) after suffering a 2014 defeat. So in actual fact, his name should be displayed as just that (Kimurayama), due to the fact we always focus on "name known as" and not birth names. While he was wrestling he was most notably called just Kimurayama, and that's how it should show in the list. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is he notable based on wikipedia notability guidelines? https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcberman1/2024/07/11/international-tv-distribution-exec-amando-nuez-sr-dies-at-96/ FerasWebsite (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes he is, as he has coverage other than through obituary and reached a very high level during his lifetime's business activities. He also has a Legacy obituary, which is usually a good sign, at https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/name/armando-nunez-obituary?id=55550894, and I would urge you to consider using that one instead of Forbes when you make the entry at Deaths in 2024. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you refsworldly, it has been posted. FerasWebsite (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand WP:OVERLINK as saying that there's no need to link to current countries and their capitals (Helsinki, Finland). As for Sineu, Spain, I had added "Mallorca" to spare people a look at the probably unknown place name, but was reverted. What do you think? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt My personal opinion doesn't really matter in the context of WP:OVERLINK, I don't think. However, I do think it is specifically tailored (though not skewed) to suit those with the touchscreen devices it so clearly mentions, and not something like a desktop or laptop with ample resources to cope with and display information followed through wikilinks. Not too long ago we were advised not to link dates such as years, and that's reasonable, as every human being must surely be aware of what a year is and how it is conveyed numerically. The same is not true of things like countries, sadly. I have had many conversations with mainly younger people in which I will mention something like Portugal, let's say, and they will reply "Where's Portugal?" (believe it or not!).

Linking countries and suchlike can be a valuable tool for increasing knowledge in such cases. (In that instance, their ignorance of Portugal would be aided by the advice to link "proper names that are likely to be unfamiliar to readers" in the MOS:UNDERLINK section above.) That is an opinion only, of course, and flies in the face of WP:OVERLINK - for me, the main overlinking sin has always been repetition of the same wikilinks over and over in an article. As I mentioned in summary during my edits, I could not see the problem with just one example of each in that article. If you've reverted, that's fine, I won't be returning to it. The same applies if you would like to revert after reading this. Best wishes. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your view. We had a lengthy discussion once whether Estonia should be linked, and I'd agree that it's less known than Finland and Spain. I'm not eager to revert but to understand. What do you think about mentioning Mallorca? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always more concerned when individuals I encounter don't know enough about geography to identify what should be a fairly familiar country. Maybe I'd expect them to have an idea of the capitals of these countries, but I'm less worried about a region like Mallorca. (Strange - if you say to someone "Majorca", they all seem to know it. The more modern naming seems to have escaped them!) I think my personal preference would be a maximum of one link per proper name in every article, as I mentioned earlier. I don't often get involved in linking debates, so this is probably a first. Thanks for the chat. Ref ^(chew)(do) 21:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to your edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deaths_in_January_1987&diff=1237661258&oldid=1237577337 Although the source for this entry mentions the means of suicide, he has made many similar edits where the only "source" for that means of suicide is the individual's Wikipedia page itself. Do I have permission to remove the means of suicide in those cases? If yes, please tag the other user in your reply.

BTW - I find it interesting that you chastise me for "an edit summary scolding" by giving me an edit summary scolding. Bryan Krippner (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Point one is covered by the edit you quote, in which I restore the method - namely, those suicides which are correctly and reliably sourced can or should specify the method if it is given in such a source, and of course an editor removes those which aren't sourced properly, including those with circular self-reference within Wikipedia. You don't need anyone's permission for that.

Point two refers to the neutral tone I try to adopt within my edit summary suggestions. As such, I'd say I was trying to reason with you rather than scold. It can be the case that we all get irritated by virtually anonymous edits made by IPs and those by clumsy newbies, and I admit to feeling that way many a time. But I think it's important not to bite them in dealing with them. That again is achieved better by talk page communication and neutral tone, and that's how I try to approach any editor here. But I'm sorry if you still feel offended. Thanks for replying here. FAO @73.208.44.577: Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel offended, merely intrigued that that you followed the same approach you were decrying. Or are you saying it is OK maintain a dialog through edit summaries as long as the tone remains neutral? Bryan Krippner (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. As long as the text tone in the summary (or even in a reply post like this) remains civil and sounds calm, it's likely to resolve more matters than it inflames. Anyway, we've set out our own points of view, and had a conversation about it in the correct manner, so I'll close this thread if you're okay with that. Thanks again for engaging. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helge Rasche was a prominent coach who worked for two football teams, why does he not consider that it is not relevant for his partner? in Deaths in 2024. Alon9393 (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "why does he not consider that it is not relevant for his partner?" Whatever you do mean by that, it does not matter anyway now. As you and other editors have somehow concocted an article for someone who clearly does NOT pass WP:FOOTYN (read it), is NOT prominent, and is barely notable for anything else, it's immaterial what I think, and you can reintroduce him into the Deaths list without opposition (if you haven't done so already), as anyone with an English article gets to be included there. Though some clearly shouldn't quaify for an article. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: when I removed him on notability grounds he was a redlink and had no article at the time.) Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And later got deleted anyway. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This is for your tireless contributions to Deaths in 2024. Pachu Kannan (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I respecfully decline, but thank you for asking. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]