Jump to content

Talk:Eduardo Pérez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Eduardo Perez)

Requested move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Do not move. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Perez → Eduardo Pérez — It is unclear which name this article should be at. I wish to start a discussion on this, hopefully resulting in references being produced to decide which name this article should be at, and also taking Wikipedia:Naming conventions into account. For more details on the reason for initiating this move discussion, please see User talk:Gene Nygaard#challenge. —Carcharoth 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose - The sources cited in the article don't use the accent, therefore we shouldn't either. Wikipedia aims to describe, not to correct, common use. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support diacritics is the important part of life and names. If there is a source without diacritics that is not a support for not using diacritics too. This is encyclopedia, this is not a place where you should find pieces as you know them, it is a place where you must find correct facts and learn if you don't know them in the right form. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 21:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what our policy says. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per GTBacchus. The correct facts for this American-born baseball player are that the right form oof his name is "Eduardo Perez", and that can be seen in things such as his 2006 Seattle Mariners jersey in a video clip at [1], another video clip in his 2005 Tampa Bay Devil Rays jersey, etc. Gene Nygaard 22:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided (now decided - see below Carcharoth 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)) - the current sources convince me that Eduardo Perez is the correct location, but then I found this source for his father (it's the picture of the hall of fame placard). I would support adding sentences to the article saying that the name can be written as Pérez, but the source Tulkolahten points out doesn't seem to me to be reliable as far as diacritics go (it says that his birth name is Eduardo Atanasio Pérez, but then uses Perez throughout). Digging out a copy of his birth certificate would be excessive and an invasion of privacy, so I think the name on his jersey is a convincing argument. As far as common usage goes, I think it is difficult to distinguish between people using Perez instead of Pérez, and those who just type Perez because they are not accustomed to using diacritics. The prime concern for me here is to (a) stop sterile and pointless edit warring; (b) ensure that whichever form used has a reliable source and a reasonable justification; (c) make sure the appropriate redirects are in place; (d) make sure the article (and its sortkeys) is consistent with the title; (e) make sure that any doubt in the sources is reflected in the article and this is documented to avoid future edit warring. Also, there should be a lot more acknowledgement from both sides that (unless there is evidence to the contrary) most people don't mind which form is used and that the different forms are used interchangeably. Carcharoth 14:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This source lead my steps baseball-almanac.com. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 14:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, common usage is without the diacritical mark. Both links provided by Carcharoth and Tulkolahten use the unaccented name throughout the text of the page -- on both the accented names are used only in special contexts. (Actually, on further examination, this page is inconsistent in usage.) older ≠ wiser 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Weak Oppose per above...common usage is sans accent mark, as far as I can tell. Sports Illustrated, USA Today use "Perez" for instance. Erudy 07:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further research indicates small New York Times article which uses Pérez. I still think the weight of evidence is for Perez (for instance, all mentions of Perez connected to The Young Baseball Player, a children's book to which he wrote the forward, use Perez. See here for the closest view of the cover of the book, which looks like it uses Perez), but if our article remains here, it should definately note that Pérez is a live alternate spelling. Erudy 10:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the arguments above and below have convinced me that Perez is the correct location. Carcharoth 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Perez seems to be the name used by most reliable sources. The name of his father is not decisive because spelling of names often changes from one generation to the next, especially in cases of immigration to a country where certain characters or diacritics are not commonly used! --Itub 12:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
That's highly improper when it is at WP:RM. I hope somebody takes appropriate action. Gene Nygaard 22:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is what it is, Gene. Nobody's hungry or cold on account of a "highly improper" move. It was an honest mistake. Once we've sorted out whether consensus supports applying WP:COMMONNAME here, we'll be sure the page ends up at the correct location. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A mistake? I could certainly buy into that notion, if subsequent actions are consistent such a belief. Won't even argue the adjective for the time being.
  1. But—if it was a mistake, Tulkolahten took no corrective action once he realized it was a mistake.
  2. But—if it was a mistake, GTBacchus took no corrective action once he had investigated it and realized it was a mistake by Tulkolahten.
I'd consider this a joint responsibility now. If it was a mistake, subsequent actions should indicate that the parties involved are acting on the basis that it was a mistake. Gene Nygaard 11:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gene, Gene... please. This is not court. There is no need to talk about "taking corrective action". We just have the conversation, and we get the article to the right place eventually. There's no need to get all officious about stuff. We're just people having a conversation - no laws are being broken. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"There is far greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink." —Plato
Gene Nygaard 11:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that well versed on how "requested moves" works, but is it acceptable to move-protect an article until the end of a requested move discussion? I'm not going to move it back, as edit warring is not what we want to see happen here. If the discussion fails to reach a consensus, I'll move it back at that point to the default status the article was created in. Maybe the text people get when they move an article could be tweaked to say "please check the talk page and its archives to see if a requested move disucssion has taken place"? Carcharoth 14:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
  1. As nominator, you cannot close the WP:RM. Nor can GTBacchus or Tulkolahten, who have voted.
  2. WP:RM determinations do not default to the "status the article was created in".
Gene Nygaard 15:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best solution is for everyone to put the move buttons down, ignore where the article currently is, and have a discussion about where it should be, not about who screwed up. This is very distracting and unnecessary.

Another thing - nobody "voted" here. This is not a vote. It is a conversation among civil people in a non-rules-bound setting. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a vote, even if it isn't done on a strict count basis but with exactly how the votes are interpreted up to the closer. And putting down move buttons wasn't an appropriate solution at all, never is in the cases of those improper moves. Gene Nygaard 22:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Calling it a vote is a Bad Idea. It's a discussion and should be treated as such. Putting the move buttons down is precisely the correct solution while a discussion is ongoing. The same is true for any content dispute.

Talking about whether the move was "improper" is unnecessarily bureaucratic. The point is to Discuss, then Decide, then Act. In that order. If someone acts out of order, that does not make it acceptable for others to do the same. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are attacking everyone Gene? There is no problem with the current version of the article, it will be moved based on this survey, where is the problem, we are not bureaucrats? And if you wish you should correct it by yourself. When you spot something bad you just leave a message that who did it must clean it, for example as you do in case of missing redirects. Do it yourself if you think it is a good idea. I tried to create a template which will help but you are attacking me. And you bring this discussion to the place where it is not supposed to be discussed [3]. It is a discussion about the template not about your problem with diacritics or about your problem with other people. When I saw your indefinite block I disagreed but now I see it was a pretty good step. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulkolahten, please calm down. Gene may have called this a "highly improper move", but there is no need to get upset about that. In my view Gene is not attacking anyone. He may be rubbing some people up the wrong way, but getting upset about that won't help. Just discuss calmly, and as you say, the article's location will be decided based on this survey and the sources provided. You may not want Gene to have mentioned the background in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves (I agree it wasn't that helpful), but equally bringing up his recent block in this discussion is not going to he helpful. Carcharoth 16:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Gene want to be civil, [4]. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulkolahten, please let's "don't go there". This conversation is not about Gene; it's about Eduardo Perez. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carcharoth, that would be a little overkill on the redirects. Yes, if any of them were fairly commonly used, but we have no evidence that they are. The most importand ones are the ones omitting a middle name or initial when those are included, but it wasn't here in this case. Yes, the one including the middle name is fine, the others with just initials are likely unnecessary, even if there isn't a whole lot of harm if they are included. Gene Nygaard 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are right. My experience with redirects has mostly been with scientists and their ilk, where they are often referred to on papers and in lists and historical documents only by their initials, so the redirects are helpful there. I acknowledge that this is less likely to be useful for baseball players. I usually only create redirects as they are needed, but sometimes it is difficult to judge when they are needed. Carcharoth 13:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page back to Eduardo Perez pending the outcome of this requested move discussion. older ≠ wiser 16:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... if that brings peace, then so be it. Seems like much ado about nothing to me. No offense intended, Bkonrad; thanks for restoring the page. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if anyone has ever done a survey of "requested moves" to see which types of request are most common. If diacritics or other typographical ones are very common, then a separate guideline setting out a clearer process on how to reach agreement might help keep some of the disputes contained? I mean something more than just the naming convention guideline, but more a "how to do this without getting lots of people annoyed". Carcharoth 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Different manuals of style dealing with different regions of the world deal with diacritics differently, so there isn't one hard-and-fast rule here. Some move requests that suggest the addition of diacritics tend to go through - they are usually from non-latin scripts or involve people who aren't well known in the Western world (where the diacritic marks tend to be dropped by sources normally considered reliable). The ones that fail are often suggestions to add diacritics to Spanish and Eastern European names, where the diacritics may be necessary to read the name in the native language but make understanding the correct pronunciation no less difficult to a native English speaker coming across the page for the first time. Requests to add less common letters like the Ess-tset or Thorn (letter) usually fail for the same reason. Another well-marked trend is that if you move a page with diacritics, you have a choice between (a) diligently creating all proper redirects from plain titles and resorting the page properly in its categories, or (b) facing the wrath of Gene Nygaard. (Please don't take the final part too seriously; Gene gets a lot of stuff done that way.) Dekimasuよ! 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "how to do this without getting lots of people annoyed," I think it helps to keep the discussion focused on guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME. Feelings seem to get stepped on when people start talking about which rendering of a name is "more correct", which is almost entirely irrelevant to our naming conventions. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to imagine people having troubles with Pérez instead of Perez. If people will mistakenly know potatoes as "brrttgergre" then there is an encyclopedia where is "brrttgergre: see potatoes", exactly what the redirect is. English has diacritics too, simply remember Charlotte Brontë. I know that simplicity is a today's motto, but that's why I am turning my eyes to the encyclopedia. Omitting diacritics is a big loose to knowledge. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:32, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our job is to reflect, not to correct. If more people called them "brrttgergre" than potatoes, then that's where our article would be. There is no reason that the article can't mention the other spelling, and note that the unaccented version is used more commonly, so where is there a "loss to knowledge"? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usually diacritics is erased completely, wiped out, no more green trees ... Encyclopedia is for correction not for reflecting, otherwise it is not an encyclopedia but a newspapers. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Read Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability and WP:COMMONNAME. Our task has never been to take a stance against common usage. As for "no more green trees..."; it's not hard to be sure that a mention remains in the article. It's not as if you're helpless in that regard. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but birth name is not an original research and is perfectly verifiable. These two policies are not the case here. Common name is hard to find sometimes, I will always prefer birth name. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 23:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm suggesting is that, for us to say that common usage is "wrong" is original research. Who are we to say that the very sources on which we base an article are incorrect? I understand that you may always prefer a person's birth name, but long-standing consensus here has not gone in that direction. Note the locations of such articles as Prince, Marilyn Monroe, and scores of others who don't go by their birth-name. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tulkolahten, it's almost overwhelming that this Cincinnati birth was registered as "Perez", not as but we won't likely ever know that. You cited no sources here. You cited one source in an edit summary spelling his current name as "Perez" a whole bunch of times, and in one instance claiming that his "birth name" was "Pérez" but providing no evidence for that, not citing any sources for that information. My best guess that the source used there for that claim was none other than our Wikipedia, a frequent source of misinformation, which had him under that name for a while.
  1. First of all, "birth name" isn't relevant to our discussion.
    1. That isn't what our naming conventions are based on.
    2. That usually isn't what people are going to be looking for someone under in an encyclopedia, if it differs from what they generally use.
  2. Second, "birth name" is an ambiguous concept.
    1. Does it mean a specific order and spelling as recorded in a civil birth registration?
    2. Does it mean a specific order and spelling as recorded in a church's baptism records?
    3. Are there any other things which could provide evidence of this elusive "birth name"? What if it differs in various sources.
  3. Third, "birth name" is not generally verifiable.
    1. Privacy laws prevent us from acquiring a birth certificate for this living person.
    2. Now identity theft concerns have resulted in even more restrictions in this regard.
    3. Fortunately, those restrictions have no bearing on what we should be doing here.
  4. Fourth, some of us have seen the example of Arpad Elo, where a number of people were trying to say it is Wikipedia's job to inform the world that an 80-year-long American was so stupid he didn't know how to spell his own name.
    1. In that case, nobody had any evidence of a claimed birth name. Not before the move request started. Not during it. Not afterwards.
      1. So a spelling was pulled out of thin air, to get an invented-for-Wikipedia "birth name".
      2. Consequently, you can now find that Wikipedia-tainted misspelling in a number of other places on the internet.
      3. The only evidence ever offered there about the spelling of his name before coming to America was provided by me. The scanned ships manifest when he came over spelled his name in a way that differed in two or three ways from the invented-for-Wikipedia "birth name", including a double l in the surname.
  5. That also reminds me of something, Tulkolahten. Do you know the answer to this old riddle?
    • Who is the only President of the United States whose was the son of a king?
    • Answer: See Leslie Lynch King, Jr.
Then come back and tell us why we should move our Wikipedia article to Leslie Lynch King, Jr. rather than leaving it at the name under which it appears now when you follow that redirect. Gene Nygaard 10:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Japanese Season and Minor League Time

[edit]

I can't see any reference at all in the main article to his U.S. career being interrupted by his playing for the Hanshin Tigers in Japan in 2001, as described in the summary box. (Baseball Reference says that he was "purchased...from St. Louis" in December 2000 and "purchased by St. Louis..." in January 2002.) Obviously there's more to the story than that; loaning or transferring a player to a foreign team isn't normal practice, and can't be done without the player's approval.

The article also doesn't mention that he'd spent more playing time in 1999 and 2000 with the Cardinals' AAA team in Memphis than with the Cardinals themselves. (It skips from 1997 to 2003.) In fact, until his return from Japan after 2001, he'd had only two seasons -- 1997 and 1998 -- with more major league games than minor league games. You'd never know that from the article. Ajericn (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eduardo_Pérez&oldid=1257919647"