Wikipedia

Talk:Davide Astori

Latest comment: 5 years ago by IvanScrooge98 in topic IPA
Learn more about this page

Height

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

Just wondering if User:GiantSnowman would mind explaining this edit in which he removed a reliable source from this biography of aliving person.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just wondering why Gibson Flying V is trying to prove a POINT by introducing sources - at this article and others - which support his pro-cm agenda, when plenty of alternative sources (which don't) are widely available, such as this and this. GiantSnowman 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
And my question goes unanswered. Your edits imply that you don't believe the FIFA source I introduced to the article (which is more recent and probably more accurate than the foreign language one you replaced it with) has any business in it. Would you mind taking another run at explaining yourself? (and don't forget to assume good faith.) --Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have explained that edit. I was un-doing an editor who was trying to prove a POINT. GiantSnowman 20:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
You've now contrived to find a source that does show the correct height (as per the FIFA source), but in your preferred metres format. I think this goes some way to proving who has the POINT. It seems you'll go to quite greath lengths to keep the FIFA source out of this article, preferring a Sky News source which will only be online for who knows how long? I'd say the FIFA source is more reliable than the Sky one. You disagree?
No, I was simply keeping the article in line with the relevant MOS, which uses m, because the majority of sources used for heights on footballer articles use m. And if you want a FIFA source, feel free to use this which describes him as "1.88m tall". GiantSnowman 20:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, now we're finally getting somewhere. So a number of sources can be found that express Astori's height in both metres and centimetres. Agreed? When sources conflict we examine them to determine which is more reliable and weigh them up. Overall FIFA, which is the peak international body for soccer administration generally appears to prefer centimetres when it comes to displaying players' data in an infobox-style format. Agreed? Also, do you agree that WP:ENGVAR as well as consensus at the Human height article should be taken into consideration or ignored?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

So even though I have shown that FIFA uses both cm and m - and that many other reliable sources use m for this player (and indeed all footballers) - you insist on using cm? Why? GiantSnowman 10:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I know you don't care either way because you're apparently unfamiliar with using the metric system. Anyway, how about some answers to my questions above?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes sources can be found which display height in both cm and m - but more sources use m. FIFA uses both, so I'm not sure why you say we should use FIFA's cm over FIFA's m (well I do know - your personal preference). ENGVAR refers to spelling, not heights. GiantSnowman 11:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
As you very well know the FIFA.com source (which remains deleted from this article) has an infobox for players very much like the one in this article, which lists all players' height in cm. You found an isolated instance in the writeup beneath that which mentions his height again, this time in metres, within its prose. I'm not sure why you're forcing me to type this out. Clearly more weight should be given to FIFA's infoboxes, no? You must surely also have noticed that WP:ENGVAR states "These varieties (e.g. American English vs. British English) differ in ... date formatting ("April 13" vs. "13 April")". This example would be perfectly analagous with "1.88 m" vs "188 cm" if a single shred of evidence could be found that metres are preferred in any form of English. So perhaps instead I should simply remind you that this is the English Wikipedia and non-English sources are disregarded when it comes to formatting (otherwise, you would be arguing for "1,88" or "1m88"). By the way, the non-English source for Astori's club was useful for referencing his club number, but you've also deleted that. The weight of evidence for centimetres being the more common sense option keeps adding up. What are you countering it with?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
No, all I've down is shown that FIFA does not exclusively use cm. ENGVAR refers to spelling and date - but I cannot see any mention of height? Also we never use references for footballer squad numbers, but I wouldn't expect somebody with zero experience in that area to know that. GiantSnowman 20:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Anything else? Or will you reinstate my edit now?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Why would I do that? You have not presented compelling evidence that the majority of reliable sources prefer cm over m for this player. GiantSnowman 12:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Bearing in mind that GiantSnowman has already said "I fully support your introduction of cm to articles where the majority of sources use cm", I thought it's time we had a look into this. Below is my best attempt at compiling a near-exhaustive list of English-language sources that display Davide Astori's height in metric units. I have disregarded sources that display his height in imperial units only, as these have never been an issue. I have also disregarded sources that identify themselves as blogs, as well as those that have obviously just cut & pasted from Wikipedia. I also have not included multiple sites from the same source. Having said that, for the sake of thoroughness I have included on both sides some that are, as you can see, quite crappy looking (yet many of these are actually used as sources in Wikipedia articles). I've therefore (according to my own personal, subjective judgement) loosely listed them in order of quality. Those in bold are the ones that are likely to have access to Astori himself, and therefore the ability to actually measure him (according to the core policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability: "The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts").

I'm sure this isn't perfect so anyone's welcome to bring any errors or omissions to my attention. Whilst the above comparison naturally excludes Italian sources, I think it's worth merely noting the following: Astori's Italian club, who would also be in the category of sources able to access the man himself for measurement, lists his height on their official website as 188cm, and accordingly, so does the Italian Wikipedia version of this article.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that is impressive research, thank you. I, of course, meant reliable sources and the VAST majority of those in your cm column do not past muster. Others in the m do not either - Transfermarkt should never be used, for example - but overall you have not changed my mind I'm afraid. Further, this is not about this player - this is about footballers in general, as the same sites will be used for almost all players. Therefore what is relevant for one will no doubt be relevant for all. We have a MOS that applies to all players. If your RFC at {{Height}} is successful, I suggest we seek consensus at WT:FOOTBALL about what format that WikiProject should use on player articles. GiantSnowman 18:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
It's tempting to think that if the result was reversed, you would:
a) point to the sheer weight of numbers without regard for reliability (in line with your previous statements about mere majority consensus) especially since we're only looking at formatting's common usage for guidance here, or
b) focus even more on reliability and Wikipedia policy and only point to the sources with the ability to accurately measure Astori's height.
But alas your response to this was never really in doubt. I also think I've been quite generous allowing FIFA.com to appear in both columns. Another approach would have been to list each individual instance of Astori's height being published at FIFA.com, in which case the centimetres column would have three more bold entries (1, 2, 3).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

WP:TLDR, and I'd venture to guess its WP:WABBITSEASON with all the other parallel discussions. GFV: If GiantSnowman's "response to this was never really in doubt", and nobody else has participate in this discussion over 5 days, it might be a sign there is no consensus to change this article right now.—Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Fine essays to be sure. Wikipedia:Consensus: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view." WP:NOTAVOTE. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
While you think your argument is stronger, I think my argument is stronger, so I guess we cancel each other out and the status quo remains i.e. height in m. GiantSnowman 09:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
See previous comment.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Davide Astori. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Davide Astori. 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) 17:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

IPA

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

@GiantSnowman: you did well to temporarily remove the ipa and the sources and to ask to take the discussion here. honestly i have nothing to challenge about the ipa, all i did was changing the order of the possible pronunciations of the surname, i didn't think this edit could have been challenged. i did that because in italian the word 'astore' (goshawk) which, in the plural 'astori', originates the surname, is pronounced with [o]. in italian letter 'o' may be pronounced either as [o] or as [ɔ], in this case the most correct and common sound for this word and surname is [o]. i've read the source, i don't understand why such an important dictionary as the dipi registers the less common and less correct form as first, but evey other dictionary disagrees: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] ('ó' means [o]). even if all these sources register only 'ó', i don't want to remove the pronunciation with [ɔ] which is sourced, just to put it as second. if this minor correction is so unacceptable, i'm not interested in starting a long discussion to convince you to change the order, but i hope you've already understood that my edit is an improvement, not a vandalism due to lack of knowledge. 89.96.31.16 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vaselineeeeeeee: read what i've written just above and tell me who's misinformed. you aren't even italian but you think you're more informed about my native language than an italian speaker from birth as me? where do you get off telling anonymous users such things just because you're a registered user? next time remember that on the other side of the screen there's another human being like you and he may know things better than you do. 89.96.31.16 (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Here we go again with the 'I'm not Italian so I know way more than you'—which shows you are misinformed once again—here, we go by sources, not WP:OR, and the sources told me it is /ɔ/. If you do not provide sources for your edits, and have only one edit, you come across as misinformed, or are using OR, yes. Per, WP:BRD, the one who is reverted is encouraged to take to discussion, not remove the entire thing while discussion occurs, the original stays until an agreement is reached. Is it also OR to say "'ó' means [o]"—it is not indicated by the source that this is really the case—those sources are not based on IPA. @IvanScrooge98: for his expertise. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
While it is true that ⟨ó⟩ represents [o] in regular Italian orthography, most especially in dictionaries, we are not 100% sure the surname originates from the name of the bird, meaning there must be another reason why both DiPI and DOP put the [ɔ]-variant in the first place. In any case, even though I normally order pronunciations based on how commonly they are (or seem to be) reported in pronunciation dictionaries, placing either variant before the other should not matter that much in my opinion.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  14:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Italian orthography states ó can represent both /o/ or /ɔ/, so how can we definitively know which it is referring to in this case? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Vaselineeeeeeee: that’s plain (stressed) ⟨o⟩ when not marked by a diacritic :) astóre definitely represents /aˈstore/.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  15:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks for the clarification :) Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Don’t mention it.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Adding one more thing to implement what I was saying: [9][10][11] as you can see, DiPI and DOP too report the common noun astore as just /aˈstore/, but the surname (which apparently also exists in a “singular” form) as /aˈstɔre/ as well.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  15:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Vaselineeeeeeee: i didn't say 'I'm not Italian so I know way more than you' but the opposite. however... first of all, before that i told you to read what i'd written just above, but i'm afraid you didn't or you wouldn't have said that you go by sources, as i did took many sources there. second, your deletion with a line of your affirmation about 'ó' is a perfect example of q.e.d. about your less knowledge about italian compared to a mother tongue speaker like me, the original reserach was that wrong thought of yours. last but not least, IvanScrooge98 whom you pinged seems to be an italian who knows enough about italian pronunciation, fortunately, and confirmed that these pronunciations are equivalent and there's no problem in changing their order. so, i hope that you won't oppose again my simple order reversion which doesn't remove anything but adjusts the order of the pronunciations by importance and diffusion. 89.96.31.16 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@GiantSnowman: your opinion is welcome too. 89.96.31.16 (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I guess you conveyed that differently, that quote is as if I were saying it sarcastically. The line I struck was a simple question of clarification about orthography, which I am less adept, as your sources seem to be showing orthography, not IPA; this question was answered, and therefore struck. The order should still not be changed because as IvanScrooge98 also stated, it is not known if the surname originates from the bird, and . Perhaps a note could be added with the IPA of astore, also saying that the relation between this bird and the surname is not known. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Emidio De Felice's book stated the surname may originated from Astóre or Astórre the bird. But it seem not the reason to change the pronunciation for the footballer. It may worth to state the alt pronunciation in the surname article, however. Matthew hk (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Seeing as I keep getting pinged here, I have no opinion on the correct IPA. FWIW I think IPAs are silly things to include in articles, but that's not why I removed it. GiantSnowman 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
    I don’t understand all the fuss about this. Both possible and sourced pronunciations were already there when the change was made, claiming Astóri is more common than Astòri, which probably is, but as long as that statement is not proven, I think we should stick to the sources, or at least not bother too much about which one should go first. Without removing anything, since it is perfectly sourced.   イヴァンスクルージ九十八（会話）  19:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Davide_Astori&oldid=1199112538"