Talk:Li (surname meaning "profit")/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

WP:ANI#User:Bmotbmot

I've put something at WP:ANI#User:Bmotbmot. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Feng, etc

I just received this on my Talk page:

Per policy, we should not be including Chinese characters in our article titles. You know this, as we are currently embroiled in a long debate about it, and I don't think it's helpful to exacerbate the issue by introducing new, barely notable stubs with inappropriate disambiguation while the discussion is still underway. It's not dissimilar to the conduct of our friend. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I presume this relates to having just created Fēng (surname 封) as part of the effort of cleaning up the mess in Feng (surname). It is obviously a temporary title just like all the other random mess of temporary titles above, and I want to see an apology from Rob Sinden for " You know this ... It's not dissimilar to the conduct of our friend" - that was completely inappropriate and certainly a breach WP:AGF, if not WP:NPA. As for notability, the reason this had to be created was because the wikidata interlinking was messed up, we (now) have Feng surnames created that aren't in the Baijiaxing, and aren't in zh.wp. THIS ONE IS. It's a major Chinese surname. As clicking the source will show. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at Category:Chinese-language surnames We have a clean base to start from (other than "Li"). We are trying to reach a resolution for disambiguation that does not include Chinese characters. Creating Fēng (surname 封) is WP:POINTY and disruptive at this point. As is moving Tang (Chinese surname) to Tāng (surname 'hot water'). We're still discussing suitable disambiguations. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rob

May I ask, what's your expertise or authority here? What puts you in a position to make statements counter WP:AGF to any editor attempting to clean up this mess?

In the process of cleaning up Li, Tang, Feng I had to move:

• Li (last name) to Lì (surname No.249): temporary placement after giant mess by new editor, see RM)
• Li (Chinese family name) to Lì (surname No.247): temporary placement while sourcing/editing, RM will decide later)
• ‎ Tang (Chinese surname) to Tāng (surname 'hot water'): temporary fix, really needs 湯 in the dab)

This is part of properly identifying and sourcing these articles.

And yes, interlinking to zh.wp

Is it that you don't want these articles identifiable and sourced, you don't want them linked to zh.wp

I see you making moves and edits which make me wonder - Have you ever edited any China or anthroponymy article before. So I ask what is your expertise in this area? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The unagreed disambiguators are pointy considering you were well aware that we had not reached a decision yet, as you were part of the discussion, so you have no excuse. Let's reach a resolution on how to proceed with merging and disambiguation before introducing new articles which do not conform to one method or another and include characters that are against policy. How about we both wait for _dk's response on this? I felt we were getting somewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, they aren't "pointy" at all, and I don't need an "excuse" to work on the articles. And if you understood the subject area you wouldn't (or shouldn't) be saying such things. So again, I see you making moves and edits which make me wonder - Have you ever edited any China or anthroponymy article before. So I ask again what is your expertise in this area? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to discredit my integrity as a Wikipedian. Your question is irrelevant. My route to this particular discussion was through disambiguation or article titling. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm questioning your WP:COMPETENCE to judge a complicated and unique situation. The edits moves and merges you've been making don't seem familiar either with Chinese names or WP Anthroponmy or with the need for some consistency with wikidata now we have a central databank for interwiki links. Hence the question. But if you say your route to this particular discussion was through disambiguation or article titling. Your !vote is noted. But I would advise against further edits, moves and merges in the Chinese name article bank. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also advise you against introducing Chinese characters into article titles, which is against policy, and using other inappropriate disambiguation until we clear this mess up. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the article with 19,000 Google book hits you merged, then you can do an undiscussed move to Fēng (surname No.208) if you must. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

We have yet to decide whether individual renderings of surnames warrant their own articles. Or the correct disambiguation to use if they do. See above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to echo this WP:COMPETENCE concern. Rob, I honestly don't know what to think of you. If you are not familiar with the topic, then why are you so adamant in forcing your idea of doing things on others? I would expect that someone who is an expert in military history and knows little about chemistry to not make major edits to chemistry-related articles. I personally have no knowledge about Bohemianism or Watercolor painting, and would not get involved in related articles. Why are you here, forcing the way you want things to be and ignoring the legimate concerns of others, when you don't even show that you have any understanding of the things that are being addressed? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stick to the topic, eh guys? It's not pleasant to try to discredit other editors when you're not getting your own way. Have you considered that this needed the opinion of editors not close to the subject to give the English POV - to see it the way someone unfamiliar with Chinese writing would, and to consider WP:AT, etc., from this perspective? The article titles were completely inconsistent with policy and with each other when I got here, and incomprehensible to the casual reader. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I like your pot and kettle style. Quality comment right there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to keep all options open, and thus I don't want to rule out including Chinese characters. (Policies are not absolute) However, I think we can all agree that disambiguating by Baijiaxing's rank is even less helpful, so that's out of the question. My own position on this issue though, is that if we have a umbrella article that does its job well as a "hub", then what we title the branched out articles wouldn't be as important. _dk (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There's lack of understanding of the topics beyond its spelling (ignoring the distinct history and background of it), because the bogus opposing argument that "it is treated the same way in English" and variants is repeated (based on the spelling, which is why it doesn't apply since Wikipedia uses disambiguation pages for separate topics). I find your proposal exellent as every name is treated separately and it is differentiated (like a sort of a list article with distinct entries), which should be fair. On another note, I still rather see the inclusion of the Chinese characters disambiguation, since I find that the meaningless ranking disambiguation is worse as it ultimately leads back to the Chinese characters. --Cold Season (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)