Talk:Jonny Kim

new stubby sections
On 5 October 2021 at 13:27 UTC, took a single sentence from the "Personal life" section to form a second section of the same topic and purpose. They said,. They did not specify what SOP to which they were standardizing. Such a short stubby section is in contravention of MOS:BODY, which says "Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." I cited that manual of style when I replaced the original section. Furthermore, MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL says "In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise."Instead of following the bold, revert, discuss cycle, JesseRafe instead simply repeated their edits saying,. This is still in contravention of MOS:BODY and MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL, and the editor in question still hasn't pointed to any codified consensus that contradicts those manuals of style. The MOSes are the standards, and what this editor considers "regular" doesn't seem to jive with established consensus. If anybody can find support pages for JesseRafe's alleged agreed-upon standard, I'd really appreciate if they could add it here to correct me. In the meantime, I've reverted JesseRafe again IAW SOP and pointed to this discussion. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 18:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Date format
Why is Kim's article done in DMY? He's American and has done his activities in the United States? AngusW🐶🐶F ( bark  •  sniff ) 01:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Manual of Style on military history says, "Per MOS:DATETIES, articles on subjects predominately related to militaries or military history should use the standard format adopted by the United Nations: […] DD Month YYYY (or D Month YYYY)." Kim is a member of the US Navy, has been for approximately 19 years (about 52% of his life), and it was this career that led to his other two (medicine and space training).  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 13:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Kim is only notable for becoming an American astronaut, not because of his career as a Navy SEAL or physician. He had insufficient notability for an article prior to his selection as an astronaut. The localized date format should be treated like other American astronauts, as this page did not come about as a military biography. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, currently, 44% of the article explicitly concerns Kim's still-ongoing military service; that being the greatest percentage of the prose would seem to fit under the "predominately related" qualifier IAW WP:MILDATE. Also, his medical training (and arguably his NASA selection) sprang forth from his military service.  Just because it may've been "Y" that initially brought the subject to Hektor's attention, doesn't mean that the biography isn't predominately about "X".  That may change and it may not, but I'd say it hasn't thus far.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that once Kim has a spaceflight and presumably there is more information about his astronaut career that the date format should change? As far as I'm aware, there is not significant coverage of his active duty time outside of the astronaut corps, and this should not be treated as a military biography, but an astronaut biography. I don't believe this is any different than articles like Seth Moulton, Ron DeSantis, or Adam Kinzinger where the subject got their professional start in the military but are not notable because of their military service alone. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply anything covertly. My only input on the matter is what i said above, here consolidated:   This is a biography, not an [adjective] biography.  I'm only looking to the policies, guidelines, and manuals when editing, not other articles; I can't speak to the choices of other editors.  Is there a superior MOS (or other consensus) that explicitly applies to biographical date-formatting of astronauts?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 20:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Expedition 65
He was not on expedition 65. What is meant by Increment Leads. Is it inaccurate or unclear? 24.96.87.8 (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what it means, actually. The source just says,   I added it because maybe it's important and should be included, but if it isn't important, it's of no harm to include it for now.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 15:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Education format
@Fourthords you reverted my changes to the Education section. Respectfully, I think you are interpreting the guidelines (Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant.) far too strictly. It is orthodoxy to cite a person's education as simply [institution] ([degree attained]); the guidelines don't mean to cite in the exactly manner they have been presented, but rather as a statement on what should be included. As it stands, the current format uses, in my opinion, choppy and nearly Broken English when it need not be. GuardianH (talk) 06:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I did revert your changes to the… education parameter of the infobox… IAW the BRD cycle. Barring any other consensus-established SOP for the education parameter, we have no other instructions for how to format this information in this infobox (your "orthodoxy" notwithstanding).  For what it's worth, I do agree with the instructed standard: for a parameter titled "education", the actual education received would be the most-salient and obviously first item listed (with school and year following as increasingly less so).  To list the school first doesn't make sense—except in the alma_mater parameter, which the infobox says to use instead when "very little information is available or relevant", which isn't the case here.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:19, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Both your interpretation of the guideline and the standard construction contain at heart the very same material; it is only a matter of what makes sense to the reader, not the Wikipedia editor. For one, your format diverges from the vast majority of other Wikipedia articles, and, secondly, it uses abbreviations which may be unfamiliar with some readers (i.e. U. of San Diego). Personally, I see no reason to risk the confusion over a minor stylistic detail. GuardianH (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're finding a particular guideline on this matter; I'm referring to this page, formally referred to as the infobox's template documentation (and which I often call its instructions). If you can find a different, conflicting set of codified consensus for using infobox person, I'd be keen to see it.  I've never seen any confusion over the infobox's standardized construction of the education parameter, especially when it makes sense The article at University of San Diego lists "USD" as its appropriate abbreviation.  Manual of Style/Infoboxes certainly allows "greater abbreviation than that generally used in article bodies", but since "U. of San Diego" offers the reader greater context than USD, that's what was used.  Now that you've pointed it out, though, the new interface has given infobox variables more breathing room and we can afford the entire name without any visual errors.  I've done that, now!Lastly, I recommend using edit summaries.  They're extremely helpful and strongly recommended.  For example, these three edits (,, and ) seem largely fine, but an edit summary can help other editors in numerous ways.  Cheers!   —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You are addressing an issue different from my assertion; both your version and mine contains the required contents to satisfy the guideline—content is not the issue. The problem as I see it is that you are implementing a format which is more likely to be confusing to the general reader because it is an unorthodox and idiosyncratic version which differs from the established standard across the vast majority of other Wikipedia articles. If we followed the general format in other articles, Kim's education would be more easily communicated to the reader. Regardless, it appears neither of us have the needed consensus unless other editors weigh in. GuardianH (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The standard is established by consensus at Template:Infobox person/doc, which says for the education parameter, "Education, e.g., degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant." This is the first time I've been called  for adhering to that standard; I don't think it's ever come up in my many previous implementations of this infobox, either.  As for why you think immediately following the education parameter with …the subject's education… is confusing, I'm sorry that I can't help you at this time.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said previously, you have far too strictly (mis)interpreted the guideline to mean—quite literally—to place the corresponding values in the exact position as the guideline states it, but the guideline isn't asking for that, it's simply saying what should be included. The consensus, as demonstrated by the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia article (FAs included), is [institution] ([degree]), stickling for a format which differs from this consensus is unnecessarily confusing to a reader. If your format is the consensus, why then do all other Wikipedia articles' education parameter differ? GuardianH (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies: let me rephrse what I've said above, and try to make myself better-understandable. Firstly, if you're referring to Template:Infobox person/doc, that's isn't a guideline, but the template's documentation for how it's built and to be used.  Secondly, I haven't checked all 410,755 transclusions of the 17.26-year-old infobox person for compliance with its most-recent formatting consensus; since you have, perhaps you should argue for a change in that codified consensus.  Thirdly, it isn't "[my] format" as I neither provided input there  nor do I own that template; I do, though, agree it makes sense that a subject's   —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

United States and GuardianH
I'm asking here because I don't wish to risk the ire or wrath of by further reverting their edits IAW consensuses, policies, and guidelines: without an any explanation, they edited the article to add full stops in the infobox's abbreviation for "United States". However, the Manual of Style says,. Would somebody else&mdash;who's as-yet uninvolved in GuardianH's edits here and less likely to risk escalation therewith&mdash;mind reverting that edit IAW the MOS & WP:BRD? —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You aren't incurring any ire or wrath from me by reverting my changes—you can just ask. It's fine if you obtain a different view so long as you communicate it to me in the talk page. Per the guideline, I'll make all abbreviations in the article consistent. GuardianH (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)