Jump to content

Talk:Alex Shibutani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Alex Shibutani. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 09:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits look OK. Seameetsmountain (talk) 01:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alex Shibutani. 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) 20:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Alex Shibutani be merged with Maia Shibutani. As an ice dance pairing, their successes and failures are linked. If the two articles are merged, into Alex and Maia Shibutani, for example, there would be less upkeep of 2 separate articles.

Also, from the individual articles, I don't see that either has had much of an individual career for now. If either one branches off and has a successful singles career, I wouldn't be opposing to re-splitting. Natg 19 (talk) 08:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Support. The two articles are close to identical, and each article is overwhelmingly about Alex and Maia Shibutani as an ice dancing duo. Looking at the Alex Shibutani article, I see that "Shibutani" appears in the singular 80 times, and "Shibutanis" appears 65 times. Further, there are 28 instances of "Maia Shibutani" and 49 total instances of "Maia." There are 11 additional mentions of "Alex" without his last name. So, looking at that, there are at most (80 - 28) + 11 = 63 mentions of Alex Shibutani alone, but at least 65 + 49 = 113 mentions that include Maia. This is already not a standalone article about Alex Shibutani, and the article naming should reflect that. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against. If you merge Shibutanis' articles into one article, then you have to merge all the articles of ice dance couples/pair skating partners of into one. And If one person has several partners, then the information on that person should be separated according to each partnership. This is a tremendous amount work, of which I doubt can be accomplished in a short time. Seameetsmountain (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's untrue that one article is not allowed to be improved if all similar or related articles are not simultaneously improved. If the precedent is bad, we should be WP:BOLD. Do you have any thoughts on this specific merge proposal? --DavidK93 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a lot of work, however, I feel that this should be done (and discussed in greater length) since there is a lot of duplicated content in these ice dance articles. For pair skating, it seems that most pair skaters have several partners, so I don't feel the need to merge. But it seems that most notable ice dancers stay with one partner. Natg 19 (talk) 06:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning ice dancers, there are some counter examples of having multiple partners. For example, the 2018 US National Champion Zachary Donohue has been with 5 partners and two of them have their own wikipedia articles. A more complicated example will be Allison Reed, who has been with 4 partners and all of them have their own wikipedia articles. Seameetsmountain (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, individual ice dancers are neither universally notable nor universally non-notable. Ice dance duos are also neither universally notable nor universally non-notable. If a non-notable dancer is part of a non-notable duo, neither should have an article and they would only be mentioned in passing in places like results charts. If a notable dancer is part of one or more notable duos, the dancer should have his or her own article with full biographical details, but sections pertaining to professional career or competitive results as part of duos should be sparse and include hatnotes or inline links directing to the duo article(s), where those sections would be more thorough. (I suggested something along these lines here.) If there is a mismatch in notability between a dancer and his or her duo(s), it might be that a non-notable dancer's biography is addressed only sparsely in a duo article, or a non-notable duo's competitive results are given in a dancer's (or both dancers') article(s). This is no different from, say, musicians and bands, where one musician may be involved in multiple collaborations over his or her career; some non-notable musicians are mentioned only in passing in articles about notable bands they were members of, and some non-notable bands are mentioned only in passing in articles about notable musicians who were in them, but when both are notable, the content is split rather than repeated; for example, the Bono article contains a "U2" section, but it is much shorter than the U2 article and does not list U2's discography. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have WP:BOLDly performed this merge, after seeing the Torvill and Dean ice dance article. I do not think all ice dance articles need to be merged, but can be done so on a case-by-case basis. Natg 19 (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BOLD merge was reverted, and so I have started an RfC here for a wider discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly still strongly support the merge. In terms of building consensus, during the 2018 discussion there were no substantive arguments against merging the articles Alex Shibutani and Maia Shibutani; the only "against" arguments presented were that, if these articles were merged, then all ice dancer articles would have to be merged (untrue, as all Wikipedia articles are edited independently, and there is no policy that a Wikipedia editor who edits an article is obligated to also edit certain other articles), and that it would take extensive work to apply the merged article style to ice dancers who worked with multiple partners (which the Shibutanis have not, and, yes, editing Wikipedia takes work). No argument was ever raised that either of the Shibutanis has independent notability or can support a standalone article without content forking. And there still are no substantive arguments that have been put forward. The edit note on the merge reversion states that the merge "ended up negatively impacting google search results, (re)vision histories, and translated articles." That amounts to an argument against the merge because it resulted in a change to Wikipedia's content. Wikipedia provides tools to merge and retitle articles because merging and retitling articles are valid editing activities. The translation issue can maybe be brought up at the Wikimedia level; it would be nice if there were a way to refer readers to other-language pages when article topics don't align precisely. But none of these arguments address the article content, which is the main consideration. Looking at the revision history, I think the merged article was good. It successfully addressed their separate biographical information, and then the majority of the article was their joint competitive history--which already was the majority of both articles when they were separate, because almost all encyclopedic information about either of them is about both of them. When the merge was reverted, less than 5% of the article's content had to be removed for it to no longer contain information about Maia exclusively, and yet Maia is still mentioned by name 48 times in the article, with an additional 74 references to her in the context of "the Shibutanis" (i.e., two people). I will reiterate and expand upon what I said in 2018: There already are not standalone Wikipedia articles about Alex Shibutani and Maia Shibutani. Instead, as a result of a redundant content fork, there are two nearly identical articles about Alex and Maia Shibutani; one is titled "Alex Shibutani" and the other is titled "Maia Shibutani." The articles should be merged and retitled so that Wikipedia will have a single, well-titled article about the ice dancing team of Alex and Maia Shibutani, a notable topic. --DavidK93 (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidK93: can you also comment on the RfC? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I didn't realize there was a separate page. I will add comments there. Here, on this page, I will continue to discuss only the question of merging the Shibutanis articles specifically. --DavidK93 (talk) 15:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I STRONGLY OPPOSE this completely unnecessary merge. The above person again clearly has no knowledge of figure skating like the person who merged the articles in the first place. Looking at most ice dance pages, the same situation arises where their pages are extremely similar. Yet, after skaters retire, like the Shibutanis are presumed to have done after Maia's tumor diagnosis and following lengthy medical recovery, their life stories begin to merge. The early careers of the Shib Sibs are also different. There is also a possibility that Alex might pursue a new ice dance partner following recent developments in the United States concerning a few notable ice dancers. Furthermore, both siblings have hundreds of thousands of followers on Instagram, with a noticeable difference of followers between Maia and Alex (70,000), signaling that both siblings have their OWN fanbases and many fans, so they DEFINITELY are individually notable. Furthermore, the initial argument of the original person who merged the articles was basically: "well, if Torvill and Dean did it, why can't the Shibutanis?" Just a simple read of the introduction to Torvill and Dean answers this question. The teams are incomparable. Nearly everyone in England knows who Torvill and Dean are, gosh, they are cultural icons! However, NOBODY in the U.S. knows who the Shibutanis are, never mind what ice dance is! And again, the sole two remaining strong supporters of this merge, DavidK93 and Natg 19 don't have much – if any – knowledge of the figure skating world as shown by their contribution history. As an ice dancer myself, I believe that I probably know a bit more than they do about how things work in the sport and in the community. My final and resting argument is that the merge completely screwed up the Google search results for both of the siblings of the duo. This was only fixed, completely for Maia, and to an extent for Alex, when I finally got around to undoing the merge. With this, I rest my case. For god's sake, use some common sense. Every other ice dance team with similar pages and backgrounds have their own pages; there's no reason to mess up the Shibutanis. --ended up negatively impacting google search results, vision histories, and translated articles (talk)
@Lilydog945: I'm going to refute your arguments directly, as pertains to the merger of Alex and Maia Shibutani.
  • "The above person again clearly has no knowledge of figure skating like the person who merged the articles in the first place."
A Wikipedia editor is neither required nor expected to be a subject-matter expert. The criteria for editing are the abilities to read sources, vet them as reliable, and summarize their information. Comments about me, a Wikipedia editor, are not arguments about how this article should be organized.
  • "Yet, after skaters retire, like the Shibutanis are presumed to have done after Maia's tumor diagnosis and following lengthy medical recovery, their life stories begin to merge."
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Is there a reliable source that they have retired? Assuming you mean "emerge" or "diverge," if their life stories separate such that one or both of them achieve independent notability (she becomes a cancer activist and he becomes a sportscaster), it would make sense that they would have separate articles. If their life stories take shape such that neither of them achieves independent notability (she becomes a lawyer and makes partner in four years while he marries and has four kids; they are both very happy), then they would not have separate articles (because it is not sufficient that their biographical details differ from each other, if the differences are not about their notability). But, in the present, we should not have separate articles on the basis that they might be independently notable in the future.
  • "The early careers of the Shib Sibs are also different."
Can you please elaborate? Both articles say that they teamed in 2004, when they were 10 and 13; "early" by most standards. In the current articles, literally half (61 of 123 words) of the "early career" section in Maia's article is a quote from Alex, which itself forms two thirds of Alex's "early career" section (98 words). Can you offer any insight into what substantially nonidentical "early career" sections would look like? The merged article handled it well, by using some of the information to preface the "career" section and putting other information under their separate biographical headings. As this is your only substantive argument, I am genuinely interested to know more about your competing proposal for the content of the articles.
  • "There is also a possibility that Alex might pursue a new ice dance partner following recent developments in the United States concerning a few notable ice dancers."
Again, speculation. If this happens, we should discuss how to write about it.
  • "Furthermore, both siblings have hundreds of thousands of followers on Instagram, with a noticeable difference of followers between Maia and Alex (70,000), signaling that both siblings have their OWN fanbases and many fans, so they DEFINITELY are individually notable."
The Wikipedia:Notability guideline states that "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity." The notability guideline calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources." Their number of followers is not such coverage.
  • "Furthermore, the initial argument of the original person who merged the articles was basically: "well, if Torvill and Dean did it, why can't the Shibutanis?" Just a simple read of the introduction to Torvill and Dean answers this question. The teams are incomparable. Nearly everyone in England knows who Torvill and Dean are, gosh, they are cultural icons!"
None of my arguments about the Shibutani articles have anything to do with articles about Torvill and Dean, and your comments about Torvill and Dean don't address my arguments about the Shibutani articles.
  • "However, NOBODY in the U.S. knows who the Shibutanis are, never mind what ice dance is!"
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If you believe the Shibutanis are not notable, then by all means nominate their articles for deletion. (I would oppose such a nomination.) Overall, I'm confused by your competing claims that each of them is an independently famous person, and also nobody knows who they are.
  • "And again, the sole two remaining strong supporters of this merge, DavidK93 and Natg 19 don't have much – if any – knowledge of the figure skating world as shown by their contribution history."
Describing us as "the sole two remaining strong supporters" is strange; it makes it sound like there were other supporters who were persuaded away from that viewpoint, which isn't the case. "Knowledge of the figure skating world" isn't required for an editor to evaluate the notability of content and the reliability of sources. Lacking "knowledge of the figure skating world" didn't somehow make lots of unique information about Alex Shibutani and about Maia Shibutani, that was present in the articles and in the sources when you were reading them, suddenly collapse into verbatim and near-verbatim repetition of information that is consistently about both members of the ice dancing team Alex and Maia Shibutani when I turned my eye to them.
  • "As an ice dancer myself, I believe that I probably know a bit more than they do about how things work in the sport and in the community."
Maybe you do. If so, the way to use that expertise is to bring forward sources the rest of us wouldn't have known how to find, and to improve summaries of sourced information by using your better understanding of the material to better contextualize and evaluate it. Not by asserting that your knowledge of an article's subject gives greater weight to your arguments about Wikipedia content. Because "how things work in the sport" and "how things work in the community" are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I'm a mechanical engineer. The way I use that in a discussion is not by saying, "The bridge will collapse! I know because I'm a mechanical engineer!" Instead, I say, "The bridge will collapse! The stress on that member is 50 ksi but the ultimate tensile strength of the material is only 45 ksi!"
  • "My final and resting argument is that the merge completely screwed up the Google search results for both of the siblings of the duo."
I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that requires Wikipedians to monitor Google search results for article subjects. Google search results are sometimes used to gauge what common names are in use for article subjects, but article titles are not and have never been constrained by their impact on Google search results.
  • "Every other ice dance team with similar pages and backgrounds have their own pages; there's no reason to mess up the Shibutanis."
Precedent is not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia, and consensus can change. If the proposal here is better than what is in place on other articles, then we are not discouraged to implement it only because it is not in place for similar articles. If other articles feature verbatim or near-verbatim repetition of information about people who achieved notability together, then those articles (or at least the relevant sections) should be merged. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose per Lilydog945. As a skater myself (but not an ice dancer), I completely agree with their perspective.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical observation by someone trying and failing??? to stay uninvolved: It is possible to transclude a section of one page into another, something that was not possible in 2008 when this page was created. I've seen it used mostly in "list"-type articles where two or more lists need to share a common section so they do not get out of sync with each other. However, in principle, it could be used here to have two pages that shared a common section. Note: I'm just pointing out that this is possible, I am undecided as to whether it should be done here. For now, I'm undecided on the whole split/don't-split discussion. I'm just pointing out a technical option that some editors may not be aware of. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's brilliant! Thank you for this suggestion. If the articles stay separate, I think it would be great to transclude sections 2-5 (by virtue of permanently identical information) and maybe 6-9 (as currently written, but not by permanent necessity) from one article to the other. If sections can be partially transcluded, that might be useful for "Awards and Honors," where Maia does have one unique honor (but her article omits a shared honor listed on Alex's page). --DavidK93 (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?!?

[edit]

What happened to the language translations and previous versions of this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilydog945 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Shibutani&oldid=1209481187"