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;

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Click here to post a new message below.

This is Refsworldlee's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Ref^(chew)(do) 02:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Names of sumo wrestlers

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]

Notability

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]

Overlink

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 Estland 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]

Method of Suicide

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]