Jump to content

Talk:2014 International Premier Tennis League season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Foreign alphabet/character player names

[edit]

I'm soliciting opinions about whether players whose names are Romanized from other alphabets are character sets should have their names presented in that foreign alphabet or character set the first time the player is mentioned in the article. Taxman1913 (talk) 14:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is an incredible departure from Wikipedia decorum which demands that we be polite and assume good faith. Further, your comment in deleting the foreign alphabet/character names in the article is inflammatory. Specifically, you said: "Complete and utter racist nonsense. A)English language website so not needed. B)English wiki not international C) Only for certain players leaving other non English speaking countries out)." How is it racist when it is applied to all players whose original names are in other than the Roman alphabet to the extent they are known? For example, I found no foreign alphabet version of Sania Mirza's name and assumed that her original name, as is frequently the case in India, is in the Roman alphabet. With the English-language Wikipedia having far and away the largest number of articles, there is certainly a benefit provided by the metadata created when the foreign letters/characters are used. This article will show up in Web searches of player names in those alphabets. Taxman1913 (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside from the clear benefit of producing metadata in non Roman alphabets that makes this article searchable in many languages other than English, reverting the original edit that created the foreign alphabet/character presentation violates Wikpedia reversion guidelines. Going through the criteria described in the acceptable and unacceptable reversions sections, it is clear that (1) The original edit was not vandalism; (2) The original edit was a good faith edit, and there is no reason to believe that the original edit makes the article clearly worse and that no element of the original edit is an improvement; (3) There is no reason to believe that the original editor was simply misinformed or didn't think the edit through as demonstrated by the conversation that has ensued since the first reversion; (3) The reversion was clearly not incidental; (4) It hasn't been demonstrated that the original edit is unnecessary or doesn't improve the article (although that was asserted in the edit summary when it was reverted the first time), but even if it could be demonstrated, that would fall far short of the threshold of actually making the article worse; (4) The reasons given above supporting reversion are thus far limited to mentioning that it isn't done that way in other sports articles which represents an undue bias toward the status quo, while the original edit represents Wikipedia's preferred bias toward change; (5) While it hasn't been demonstrated that the article was even slightly better before the foreign alphabet/character set presentations were added, even if that could be shown, it falls short of the criteria for an acceptable reversion; (6) The large edit criterion doesn't apply to this situation; and (7) The improper process criterion doesn't apply to this situation. In summary, the good faith original edit does not make the article worse or incorrect but provides a benefit in the metadata, and reversion of the original edit is a departure from Wikipedia reversion guidelines on several fronts. Taxman1913 (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've declined the request for an opinion at WP:3O as more than two editors are already involved, but I'll offer my opinion in a private capacity. I think that inserting the foreign-character-set version of the names into the running text and the tables clutters them and should not be done. Better to put them in parentheses in the first sentence of the articles about the players. The argument of searchability in other character sets doesn't convince me at all -- the searcher would still have to be able to read the article in English to be able to make use of it. And the reversion does not violate Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, which in any case is only an essay, not a guideline. Its Acceptable reversions section gives clear scope for reversions based on the reverter's good-faith belief that the reversion is preferable. Actually, it is reverting the reversion that constitutes a violation -- of WP:BRD (also an essay, not a guideline). The correct procedure is to remove the inserted foreign versions and to attempt to reach a consensus on this talk page. --Stfg (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I don't understand. Is this done in some articles? The only place I've noticed non-roman alphabet is in the player bio... and then usually only once. It would be ridiculous to have it in charts and lists in other articles. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2014 International Premier Tennis League season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_International_Premier_Tennis_League_season&oldid=1196664732"