User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN

This page contains my Topical Archive re List of people by name
 * In /Top Arc LoPbN - 14 kB
 * First transfer (9K?, 2004 Jul 16)
 * 2003 Dec 17 material
 * 2004 Mar 19 material
 * Second transfer, inserted chron'ly within the first (2K, 2004 Oct 18)
 * 2004 Jan 22 material
 * Third transfer, following first two for now

List of people - Response from Paul (User Rfc1394)
This is in response to your message on my user page user talk:rfc1394. (I don't know what the command sequence is to put a username and timestamp on a page yet.) I posted this to talk:jerzy in an attempt to send you mail. I I also realize I think this should be at user talk:Jerzy so it will notify you of my response, so I'll put it there so you'll get mail.

In adding the extra letters, it was my thought that either the original block table should be fully populated, or if it was not, that the pages it links to be properly indexed even if no entries were present. Seeing 'red' on the missing items (pun intentional) items made me consider that this was inadequate. Either a block of entries should be connected together - the way the letter X is - or they should be empty but properly cross-indexed.

If there are no entries for a particular page, the answer is to cross-link to one of the other letters before it that does exist, have it add the empty letters, and link back to that page so that there are no nonexistent links.

Once a two-letter gets 'big enough' to have some entries, then it can be split off into either its own page or its own plus whatever follows it. The question on how big is 'big enough' is arbitrary, but I'd say if an entry has at least 1/2 a page, say ten items or more (unless the items before it have less than ten each) then it's probably time to split it. Also if the page gets above 20 entries then definitely split it (subject to the provision that there be some entries in the letters before it.)

Paul - Rfc1394 - Wed, Dec 17, 2003 13:07 EST / 18:07 UTC(GMT) Update 13:12 EST

(note to someone adding another item, be sure to push the 'Your heading' and 4 - line below yours so the next person coming along will know where to put their remarks. The system will automatically split that part from yours.)

[The above 'graph also left by Paul on the original talk page]

[Discussion with Angela & Bmills]
Hi, I'm sorry but your explanation of the issues with the list of people article isn't really clear. What exactly is it you need me to do? Angela. 01:38, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears you might be making some conflicting moves with Hemanshu. May I recommend that you discuss this with him. Hopefully this might give you a better idea of what is going on and what he had planned to do with the page. Angela. 01:48, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

The history on List of people by name: Mas-Maz goes back to January 15th. Perhaps you are having cache problems? The history I can see looks like:

* (cur) (last). . M 14:23, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . M 14:11, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 14:10, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 14:06, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 13:57, Jan 21, 2004. . Hemanshu * (cur) (last). . 06:36, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (touch up Cardinal Mazarin) * (cur) (last). . 06:21, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (alph in Mays) * (cur) (last). . 06:19, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (break out Maximilians ,Maximuses) * (cur) (last). . 06:07, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (Mary Matalin: activist ->consultant; break out Matthew and Matthews; headings w/in Mat) * (cur) (last). . 05:57, Jan 21, 2004. . Jerzy (break out mason, move **Mason, Wide Mouth, singing group to talk) * (cur) (last). . 09:04, Jan 20, 2004. . Jerzy (add *Mazzetta, Rose Marie, (born 1923), actor as "Baby Rose Marie" (age 3 to 11 or 15) and as "Rose Marie", still performing as of 2003) * (cur) (last). . 17:09, Jan 15, 2004. . Jerzy (new page, from "... by name: Ma" plus 3rd index row)

Is that different to what you see? Tim Starling has also replied to you on the Village pump. I wouldn't report it as a server fault just yet. Angela. 01:55, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

If someone moves A to B and then someone else moves B to A, the first move isn't shown, but assuming they moved it using thr "move this page" link, not by cut and paste, the history should be back at A and there will be only a redirect at B, with no history. Angela. 02:36, Jan 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I take it your problem is fixed? Sorry to be late, but I just got here now. Bmills 09:17, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[Discussion with Nunh-huh]
[Moved to User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN Jerzy(t) 04:23, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC); originated on User talk:Jerzy 01:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC) thru 08:48, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)]

Awesome table of people. I was going to try and think of names for the "red" links but I realized I didn't know where they would go. Would "*Kmetko, Steve, (born 1953), entertainment reporter" go on a new "Km" page, or get stuck at the top of the "Kn" page? -- Nunh-huh 01:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased by your interest, even tho IMO the list is far from what it should be & yr praise is thus excessive! The short answer to your question is "a new page should be created for it", and if Kmetko is not a hypothetical, i'll do it  w/in 24 hours, or help you understand what's involved in doing it, if your interest is that strong.


 * Here are a few longer answers:
 * In perhaps a month there should be no red links.
 * There are already plenty of ready-for-names pages w/o names, and having names for them is of no consequence in itself. (You may not have noticed that there are pages with titles like List of people by name: Bar (and while you're at it, glance at List of people by name: Bam), and even if i weren't pretty sure there aren't any Zz... names out there waiting to get on the list, i can assure you the list will never have every page and link populated with at least one name, unless the implementation is radically changed.)
 * There's a place to stash them briefly at Talk:List of people by name; the only reason i've never put anything listed there onto the list is that i put the example and the three real entries there myself, so it wasn't clear anyone thot they were priorities. (Nhat Hanh does have an entry on List of people by name: Th.)
 * One possibililty, in this case as you note, is putting it at the top but if you're interested i could explain a number of implications that make that a bad solution. (Which is why i'm committed to getting rid of the red links soon, now that i've experimented with ideas & thot some things thru in the last months.)
 * You could follow the red link & just put the name on that blank page, but at present there's not a good mechanism for anyone to note that it's been done and that they should follow up.
 * You could follow the red link and set up a new page that looks like the existing ones, but making sure that it was properly linked in both directions with almost everything else is a much bigger deal that most people who try it realize.
 * Most people on the list should also be on several other lists at Lists of people (NTBCW List of people by name), in any case. So far, "i don't do windows", in the sense that i see my plate as full with the one big list (only one other user is currently as active on it as i), and for now i don't want the distraction of getting familiar with the other lists and what problems they might have, beyond incompleteness.
 * IMO, not everyone on the list has to be eligible for an article on WP, but on the other hand not everyone belongs on the list. (Probably you know this, but forgive me for asserting what is not entirely obvious.) I don't pretend to know about Kmetko; yes and no are both very plausible answers to the question. (IMO being an example of the possibility of names with a given letter combination doesn't make someone significant enough for a List of people by name entry, tho i admit an argument could be made for that view.)
 * Let me know what your preference is; most people don't want to become experts on this facility, but you'd be welcome if you do!
 * --Jerzy(t) 03:05, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)


 * I've given it a shot: Kmetko is a real person, not hypothetical (I was so proud to think of a "KM"!) so I've made a KM page. Let me know if I've done it wrong :). Probably it would be good to see if this system catches on or if the much-bandied-about categorization scheme comes to fruition: there's sadly probably little chance of me become expert in either, though :( - Nunh-huh 03:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I look forward to categories enhancing this tree; they are not what i had in mind when i spoke of a radical departure, partly bcz i think there still needs to be a manual mode of editing this list, even if people get added immediately here when whatever associates them with the people category gets saved. As i've discussed on its talk page, i also think there should be a list that has only people who have bio articles, in addition to a list that should include some people we are sure should not have more mention in WP than an entry within the tree.

I applaud yr spirit in tackling the page, and a guess you know i'll check your work! If you screwed it up, i'll applaud you for editing boldly; if you didn't, i'll "stand in awre of you" (as Baccala told Junior). [smile] --Jerzy(t) 05:02, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Good, thorough work, editing boldly and coming out very well. I hope i'm not being overbearing by expanding on the summary comments:
 * 1 new practice i'm introducing: the commented-out NoToc operator at the top of page where it's hard to miss, is there for two reasons, 1, so when a page gets big enough to have a long ToC, no one has to struggle to remember the syntax to shut off the auto-ToC in favor of a hand built tree of indexes, & 2, so it's easy to find when an editor wants to turn the ToC back on temporarily as an aid to checking and organizing those indexes. (Not applicable to this page, since it will never get that big.)
 * 1 quibble abt technique: replacing the self-link with text is unnecessary, since the server now does that for you; it's now undesirable (tho formerly nearly mandatory) bcz it's an opportunity to screw up the "lateral index" instead of copying it unchanged from a sister page.
 * 1 almost certainly inconsequential error: == Km == is redundant and clutter, since that's how everything on this page will start. == Kme == isn't mandatory with a first entry, but it suggests, to those who add to the page, that they add their own headings, and makes it less likely that the page will already have mis-alphabetizing errors by the time someone says "this page could use some headings"
 * but the pipe would be a gotcha (if you hadn't got it right earlier!): and for the benefit of someone else who reads this, we alphabetize names based on surname-given-name order, but the link goes to the title and the titles are in normal order; that is GN-SN in English, even if his name were a Hungarian one
 * watch my talk for more, in case: i said that, assuming you were unlikely to have consulted What links here to verify that all the entries (other than the incidental link from one of my pages) were there; and assuming you were unlucky enough to have chosen a troubled row of the "master table" on List of people by name, where there could be relics of previous edits that would interfere if had someone else had previously tried to do something ill-considered, or made a slip of the keyboard on another page of the row.

Bottom line, i think on reflection that i owe you an apology for trying to discourage you (most of the problems i've caused or seen probably had to do with subdividing existing pages), and my congratulations for not letting yourself be bullied. --Jerzy(t) 07:07, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. If that's bullying, you need bullying practice! The link thing is a bit embarassing (a bad cut/paste job from rendered rather than source text). Listings maintained by people are almost inevitably going to be better than those done automatically, but we'll knw when we see it! - Nunh-huh 07:22, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup, on reflection it occurred to me exactly how you achieved the match in wording without duplicating the link proprerly. I've done it too.

There's some kind of expression about "quantity being a kind of quality", and on the basis of no facts other than once adding "West Wing" cast members' names to the list, i have the impression that we people have been anything but thorough at transfering names from article (and i suspect also bio-article titles) to the various lists of people. On the other hand, entry for entry, there's nothing like human attention, and especially lots of eyeballs looking over what the algorithms have blindly dumped. BTW, when i said above
 * As i've discussed on its talk page, i also think there should be a list that has only people who have bio articles, in addition to a list that should include some people we are sure should not have more mention in WP than an entry within the tree.

i think i was recalling someing i said on a user talk page, so no one should wade thru Talk:List of people by name looking for it. (Hmm. As if my having said that made such a search likely. [blush]) I'll hunt it down for the article talk, just in case i said something brilliant. --Jerzy(t) 08:48, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

[Discussions with Paul (User Rfc1394) & Nunh-huh

 * Paul (User Rfc1394), 2003 Dec 17

and
 * User:Nunh-huh, 2004 Mar 19

moved to User talk:Jerzy/Top Arc LoPbN Jerzy(t) 04:24, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)]

LoPbN Admin Move
Good morning. I've moved List of people by name: Bo-Bq to List of people by name: Bo as you requested. I'll leave you to sort out redirects. Angela. 06:43, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Too big
I'm sorry. I guess that I was trying to do a lot of things, and didn't really think this one through. You were right to revert that edit. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike Storm (Talk) ]] 21:54, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hemanshu Reversion
[For both sides of the "dialogue" w/ him, see User talk:Hemanshu.] tk] Please explain what the purpose of your revert was. --Hemanshu 19:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[The dialogue w/ Ardonik is reassembled from the following and User talk:Ardonik/Summer 2004, immediately following the next 3 'graphs.] Jerzy, Hemanshu's on #wikipedia right now. He's evidently willing to engage in discussion, so I'd unlist him from WP:VIP and take it to one of your talk pages. --Ardonik.talk 17:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jerzy. I received your message and replied on my talk page.  If you need help setting up IRC, let me know; otherwise, User talk:Hemanshu is the place to be.  --Ardonik.talk 17:19, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * I received your second message and replied on my talk page. Can you please talk to him again?  Pretty please?  --Ardonik.talk 17:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Full Dialogue w/ Ardonik
Jerzy, Hemanshu's on #wikipedia right now. He's evidently willing to engage in discussion, so I'd unlist him from WP:VIP and take it to one of your talk pages. --Ardonik.talk 17:03, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * And he doesn't know where to find me?


 * I'm not set up for IRC, which is what i think you referred to.


 * --Jerzy(t) 17:15, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Hi, Jerzy. I received your message and replied on my talk page. If you need help setting up IRC, let me know; otherwise, User talk:Hemanshu is the place to be. --Ardonik.talk 17:19, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can help you set up IRC if you'd like. It's really simple: download Gaim. But you can also just leave a message on his talk page. I'm glad that you're both here, anyway; once he responds, I think you should de-list him from WP:VIP. --Ardonik.talk 17:18, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * You seem to think you're mediating or something; that there's something i should initiate right now. I've been there (User talk:Hemanshu), done that, and no T-shirt.  If they finally have something civil to say to me, i may be able to reply civilly in a week or so, but my being on IRC with them is the last thing WP needs right now. --Jerzy(t) 17:31, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)

Jerzy, I strongly recommend that you talk it over with Hemanshu. I don't want to be thrust into the middle of an edit war. He seems genuinely willing to communicate and express his concerns to you (anbd the rest of us) at #wikipedia, and he's also waiting for a message from you on his talk page or WP:VIP. I've been exhorting him to talk, and I'm going to exhort that you talk to him also. Refusing to communicate is what gets us into edit wars to begin with, and they do nothing to further this encyclopedia. --Ardonik.talk 17:36, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I received your second message and replied on my talk page. Can you please talk to him again? Pretty please? --Ardonik.talk 17:38, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * He has an unanswered msg on this talk page. (Well, a verbally unanswered one.)


 * If you'll look at the contribs and histories you'll see that i'm avoiding an edit war by lying down like a rug (tho i won't lie by act or silence about the situation), which is my style in conflicts. I responded at length to his only msg, IMO (as i said in it) more kindly than he deserves. He has not responded to the explanation that he asked for.  IMO, every indication -- and notably the fact that you are here begging the one who has sought discussion with him, for nearly a year, to get things rolling -- is that we are not going to interact fruitfully, and that i would end up inflaming the situation by trying to discuss at a point where i think i've said everything helpful that i could say.


 * The sub-headings are worthwhile, but not worth fighting for. And they can be put back when he gets banned or goes away mad over something else; i'm good at using diffs for that sort of thing, if it doesn't seem just as efficient to recreate them from scratch.  If the usefulness of LoPbN hasn't ended first, as the Cat system takes over. In the meantime, i have a backlog of splitting of pages of LoPbN to do, and if he wants to talk at some point, i'll be less likely to lash out then for not having struggled to get him to talk.


 * Believe me, the key to this is that one side understands this isn't worth an edit war.
 * --Jerzy(t) 18:11, 2004 Sep 19 (UTC)


 * This is to thank you for your kind and valuable, and public-spirited intervention, even if i may have seemed pretty ungrateful, or perhaps sarastic (not to say sArdonik [wink]), at the time. My state of mind has improved much faster than my pessimistic prediction, and i've just posted at User talk:Hemanshu.


 * I consider your removal at WP:VIP a wise approach, especially as the contested edits had reached a natural end point and ceased, 1.5 hrs since, so that clearly no V was IP.


 * Thanks again for what i think was needed, which promises calm and hope of objective improvement. Please regard this as an expression of satisfaction, without any request either to stay with it or to call it done, as i am quite happy to rely on your fine judgment as to that. [smile]
 * --Jerzy(t) 15:43, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. What I did really wasn't that special. :-) --Ardonik.talk* 16:06, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. We seldom mention the banality of goodness in so many words.... --Jerzy(t) 17:27, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Explaining my edits
Hello. I was surprised to see that my edits were being considered as vandalism by you. I am sorry that I did not read your long comment on my talk page. Here's the thinking behind my edits: (1) Where possible, avoid dividing page into sections. Why? Because too many sections make the page large, very unreadable and difficult to navigate. So if that is the rule, why have sections at all? Well, the reason is because large lists are difficult to read, maintain or edit. so obviously I have a criteria for what list is large. I didn't want to mention it as it's laughable in a way but it's also a good rule of thumb. A list that exceeds 1 page is large enough to divide into sections. 1 page: I think that's about 25 lines. since this is a bit arbitrary, I shouldn't expect everyone to follow this rule. Even I don't always follow it. if a list just exceeds a page by a few lines, I don't divide it. I do make changes when I see sections divided into very small subsections and merge them. I don't really see what the problem is and how this is vandalism. perhaps, we could individually discuss where the section should be divided into subsections. but I don't think that there should be a subsection for every 4 names. It's clear that the frequency of divided and undivided sections will vary depending on whether the section is long enough to divide. I don't see this as a problem. I think it's a good thing that we can divide the list as it grows.

While we are at it, I also wish to say that some of the small lists should be merged, empty lists should be deleted... if there is concern about the ability to create them when needed, we could have red links.

I admire your dedication to the list. I really like some of the edits you have made. And my intention is not to vandalise the list. I do not think my edits were arbitrary. --Hemanshu 18:11, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

LoPbN
tk Hey Jerzy. About the list, I realized that such lists are the indices of Wikipedia and as such are invaluable. They give you a much better feel than a search. I looked at the list in question and saw how much work you had done on it. I just voted for whatever you thought best. The list of songs by name actually came up on VfD. The main objection seemed to be that it was too massive an undertaking, not that it wasn't useful. I wonder what they think about Wikipedia? Anyway, I liked the idea because it's a deeper linking than most of the other lists since the songs will usually be in the article about the album or band. I resolved to add songs from any Discographies that I add. I specifically designed the sig to annoy people like you :>. I'm glad to see how effective it was. Anyway, just for you, I made it readable. The Steve