Talk:List of people by name: Smith, J-M

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the hope that there might be enough info for her rdr to eventually be replaced by a bio going beyond

*Smith, Candi Calvana, Grand Cayman medical student

and the date of Evander Hollyfield's marriage to her, this info is preserved for future use.
--Jerzy•t 01:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Smiths

At 08:11, 10 February 2006 Jimmmmmmmmm (talk • contribs) notes that

Manchester? there a United and a City you know!

_ _ Indeed i was guessing something long those lines. But what i called "this near-perfect-storm case" for demonstrating the virtues of "lo-res trmnlgy" is about what is useful and what is clutter for finding the Alan Smith they are after. The City/United distinction is just clutter, since there is apparently no Alan Smith at Manchester City. On the other hand, not everyone interested in the Manchester United one realizes he's now there, which is why "Leeds" is valuable while "United". If you want to know what team he's at now and know only that he used to be at Leeds, you chose the right Alan Smith by clicking next to Leeds and consulting his bio. If you want to know what team he's at now and can't remember if it was City or United, "Manchester" is enuf to get you to the bio, which tells that, and "United" is insignificantly helpful. The purpose of LoPbN entries is facitating navigation, not directly providing info (the job of the articles), so only what distinguishes between the two footballers (Leeds and Manchester on one hand, and Arsenal, Liecester, and broadcasting on the other) is to the point; everything not to the point for guiding navigation is clutter that interferes with navigation.
_ _ I also omitted "former" since neither one is currently where the other formerly was, making the "former" distinction a useful one for resolving uncertainty about which article to lk to. But in that case i don't mind deferring to Jimm..., who is at the least more of a fan than i, & may have some insight i lack.
--Jerzy•t 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

All taken on board mate. Suppose it just grates us football fans when teams like Manchester United are refered to as Manchester or Nottingham Forest as Nottingham when other teams carry the city name to. Surely the word United doesn't take up the much room. Suppose you just call one current English footballer and the other former English footballer. Clears it up in one swoop.
--Jimmmmmmmmm 13:24, 10 February 2006

I'll look at it again, but bear in mind e.g. that some people will be looking for your guy bcz they just read about him in something written several years ago. They have no idea if the one guy is still active, and no certainty that the other hasn't gone back on the roster. So the goal is to cite as many things that could tell them apart, and to leave out everything else in order to make the process as quick as possible.

The crucial thing, tho, is to bear in mind that LoPbN is enough trouble to get into that people don't come to it to find, e.g., the exact team name and walk away. This is a lousy information source, and should stay that way. Each article, one click away, is a far better info source, and these entries can't compete with it.
--Jerzy•t 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no need for the use of Manchester Leeds etc a when you say one is former footballer and one current that whats sets them appart. If both were current player it would need putting in but as former is stated next to the former player why is there a need to include club names. Also just putting Manchester make the whole site look bad.
--Jimmmmmmmmm 12:12, 11 February 2006 This msg has been edited to remove a personal attack, whose substance appears in bold text.