Talk:List of International Congresses of Mathematicians Plenary and Invited Speakers/Archive 1

Redirects
I just reverted @David Eppstein's removal of a valid red-link redirect. While I appreciate your effort the goal is not to make this list redirect-free but to create as many redirects as you can. Solomon7968 23:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why? It's not always possible (sometimes those links already go to someone else) and I just don't see the point. This is a list of mathematicians, not a list of mathematician-names-as-listed-by-the-ICM. What is the point of trying to preserve the ICM's exact and often-incorrect typography? Isn't that verging perilously close to copyright violation? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything I said stands. What objection do you have for this particular case (A. J. Wilkie, I just created the redirect anyway)? I added the names of the speakers up to 1994 and created most of the redirects, all of which are checked thoroughly. For going to someone else this is a matter of adding the disambiguators (which I have NOT done, see the thread just above for the reason). The only obvious error up to 1994 is the case of Dickson and that too is noted above.


 * And I did said to remove redirects after turning them blue links. Solomon7968 23:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * And I oppose creating unnecessary redirects also, e.g. it is pointless to create A.J. Wilkie . Try using the User:Edward/Find link tool to see for yourself why. It fixes the space/punctuation issues. Solomon7968 23:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By "incorrect", I include things like spelling names with non-accented characters when the subject's actual name is spelled with an accent. Again, I insist that copying the exact text of the ICM's listing verges on copyright violation, and has no valid encyclopedic purpose. What reason do you have for insisting that the ICM spelling of a mathematician's name, rather than the Wikipedia spelling of the same mathematician's name, is the one we should list here? And why should "create as many redirects as you can" be a goal? What purpose does that serve? As for making the list redirect-free: that is a side effect of other edits I have been doing. Many of the links here go to someone else who coincidentally has the same name as a mathematician, rather than to an article on the mathematician. I have been removing those links, and replacing them by disambiguated redlinks. But at the same time, replacing the redirects by non-redirected links to the mathematician's article fulfils the WP:BRINT criterion of "Spelling errors and other mistakes should be corrected. Don't link to a misspelled redirect." (considering names without proper accents to be misspellings) and it also provides a visual indicator to me that I have successfully cleaned up the links in that part of the lists (with the scripts linked in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Eppstein/monobook.js, redirects show up green for me). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where I advocated listing the ICM version of the names? Both (I repeat both) of us agree that redirects should be removed and the Wikipedia page name should be used consistently in this list. That's not an issue. The issue is to create the necessary redirects. I have no idea what you meant by accent above. Is it Diacritic? I believe a large percentage of our readers have little to no clue about this, I certainly don't have. There is even R from diacritics, which is created for a purpose I guess. Redirects should be a must in that case (and they later should be removed like others). And the script in your monobook is the exact same one I mentioned above. Solomon7968 00:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're complaining about. You're ok with me replacing the redirects by links to the original articles, but you want me to make a redirect first before I do the replacement? And for that you reverted one of my edits? What is the reason for this pointless rigamarole? Also, re diacritics: you may think they're unnecessary decoration, probably because you come from an English-speaking part of the world, but in many languages they make the difference between two different letters, and spelling a name without the proper diacritics is spelling it wrong, as wrong as if I spelled your name as Salamon. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple enough. It is same as removing a valid red link. Create it and remove it. It serves the future. I don't get what you replied above though. I am saying our readers may not know the purpose of a Diacritic, that is not the same as considering it unnecessary decoration. Solomon7968 04:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)