- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the pages at this time, per the discussion below, although it appears possible that a separate discussion for Kim Gwang-seon could show consensus to move that page. Dekimasuよ! 00:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
– Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean), Personal, organization, and company names should generally be romanized according to their common usage in English sources.. while one user created all these pages based on only one source, http://www.sports-reference.com, they have their own way to transliterate Korean ways. for example here in 1968 Olympic official report page 623, you can see Kim Kwang-sun and Kwon Jung-hyun. or here in 1964 Olympic official report page 265, for Ahn Byung-hoon, there are other sources like this one you can google it, there are no other sources for these (current) transliterations beside that Sports-reference website. Mohsen1248 (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose I'm not seeing a convincing arguement for moving any of these TBH. Sports Ref has their names listed as they currently are, with your proposed moves listed as alt. names. For each link you find for the other name, I can find one for the current name. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Show me one more semi-decent source beside that website ? searching "Gwon Jung-hyeon" + Cycling in google gives me few results here and I guess all of them are mirror sites of Sports reference and that article on wikipedia, googling "Kwon Jung-hyun" + Cycling here gives me more results and beside that I guess Olympic Official report is much more reliable than a website which uses random way to transliterate Korean names. and this is another source which is completely independent than Olympic report and still use this transliteration. even though I don't think you really care about the sources and other things, I don't think you even read those sources I mentioned, those are official sources, not a random fan website. (which is very useful most of the time I have to admit) I think you are just stubborn which is clear from this edit. I already know what you think, let's wait for others. Mohsen1248 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Your poor arguement of "use Google" doesn't really help. Read WP:RS and come back when you understand that. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
- We don't help ourselves by making rules more complex than they need to be. Kim Gwang-Seon is incorrect. It's moved to Kim Gwang-seon. That's incorrect, so we move it to Kim Kwang-sun. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
- Oppose Mainly for what In ictu oculi said about coping rather than arguing about picking. The justification of changing them based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean) because other (maybe even more) sources spell the name a different way is weak to me compared to the thousands of Olympic articles that are fully and properly sources using Sports Reference and stand out as a good example of what Wikipedia can be. If we start changing the names based on "other sources" and then maybe don't cite those sources or cite them poorly etc. etc., the quality of the article begins to diminish (people wonder why the subject's name is different than the one in the references, for example), so I would say WP:IAR applies here because ignoring the naming conventions improves the encyclopedia more than following them. Not to mention that all this time wasted debating two equally valid names could be much better spent improving the project in other ways. Like correcting the article subject's birthday in the infobox for starters.
- Also, I'm not in favor of lionizing the Olympic Reports as if they are somehow a "better" source. The Olympic Reports had to deal with thousands of competitors in a brief time span and often scribbled down whatever they heard or were told for individual names. The Olympic Reports are replete with errors in event results, never mind competitor names, so there's no reason to assume that what is written in the report is automatically more accurate than anything else. The data behind Sports Reference, meanwhile, is contributed through a project run by Bill Mallon, an eminent sports historian who has devoted years to sifting carefully through data to be as accurate as possible, and, unlike the Olympic Reports, can be updated and changed to correct errors. That doesn't mean SR should be lionized either, there are mistakes there too (I spotted one today), it just means we shouldn't assume that the Olympic Reports are prima facie better than SR, or any other source for that matter. Canadian Paul 19:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
_pictogram.svg){kind=small}