Talk:Stanisław Skarżyński

Other pilot

Why should the following information be included in the article?

“ It should be noted, that there was also another Polish pilot Stanisław Skarżyński, shot down and killed during the Polish-Soviet war on 15 July 1920. ”

It is not about this Stanisław Skarżyński, so it does not belong in this biography. Any information about other people should be included in other biographies. If this other Stanisław Skarżyński is not notable enough for an article of his own, he's not notable enough to be mentioned here either. Aecis·(away) ^talk 09:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Because for folks doing searches on one or the other of the pilots, the same name can cause confusion...and by noting that there's another pilot of the same name who was shot down, it clears up the confusion, thus fulfilling our mission to be a source of accurate information. You write "Any information about other people should be included in other biographies." Why? What policy are you quoting? It is perfectly reasonable and within all applicable WP guidelines to include this information. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems perfectly reasonable to mention the other pilot with the same name as to avoid confusion. Nothing to do with his notability. If anything it should be noted further up in the article perhaps in the lead. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy or guideline that says something like that, nor did I say there was. But we do have common sense. It's so obvious that an article should be about its subject, that it doesn't need to be mentioned. It's obvious that the article Barack Obama should be about Barack Obama, and not about the town of Corby. This article is about the Polish aviator Stanisław Skarżyński, who was born in 1899 and died in 1942. Information about another person should be included in the article about the other person, whether they share the same name or not. Aecis·(away) ^talk 20:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Commonsense is to mention other people with the same name, every article with two or more people with same name the names are mentioned. Nobody else (as far as I know) is called Barack Obama but his page provides links to Disambiguation for Barack and Obama just in case. If the other Skarżyński had an article then one or other would be the primary topic and we would have to be provide a link at the top of each page. This happens on every bio page with people of the same name. It just happens that the other Skarżyński has not got an article yet, he could be notable I dont known but it doesnt matter the fact that he exists and could cause confusion to anybody searching for Stanisław Skarżyński who doesnt want the Stanisław Skarżyński born in 1899. They are both Polish aviators active at the beginning of the last century we dont pre judge what the users are looking for. So common sense says it does no harm but it does help. MilborneOne (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, one other Barack Obama is mentioned in the president-elect's article (his father), and there are well over 20 other people named in the Obama article (I stopped counting at that point), although the article isn't about them. Aecis, we'll continue this conversation after you've removed all those names from that article, since your peculiar philosophy seems to indicate that no one but the article's subject should be named in an article. Common sense means that we make the article as useful as possible, all your efforts result in is an article less useful. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of going off-topic, please show me where I said that "no one but the article's subject should be named in an article". There is a difference between mentioning person B in an article about person A, and describing/covering person B in an article about person A. Please don't try to make me say things I didn't say. Aecis·(away) ^talk 17:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Right here: "Any information about other people should be included in other biographies". By saying "any" you pretty much excluded info about the second pilot from this article. In addition, you said, "Information about another person should be included in the article about the other person", implying that it shouldn't be in this article. AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

And where does that say that no other person than the subject could possibly be mentioned, no matter how briefly? Are you aware of the difference between a passing mention and actually covering someone? Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:14, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow...are you? Do you realize that you just turned the argument around and justified the existing passing mention of the other pilot? Many thanks for coming around to our point of view that a passing mention of the other pilot helps clarify things! AKRadecki^Speaketh 22:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you deliberately misinterpret what I'm saying? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. You just said that a passing mention of another person is justified, right? Well, all that we're talking about is a passing mention of another person, a one-sentence, 25-word phrase that clears up potential confusion on the part of our audience as to who this person is. Have you ever tried to do research and it turns out that the person you're researching has the same name as someone else? I actually have, and believe me, to have a deliberate mention that clarifies things like this is a benefit to our readers. You have yet to point out a) any policy that this violates and b) how this reduces in any way the value of the article. You have actually agreed that a passing mention is acceptable. So where's the problem here? Move on, have a merry Christmas, and remember that we're here to provide accurate, useful information to our audience. AKRadecki^Speaketh 23:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A passing mention touches upon person B within the context of an article about person A. This article first covers person A and then goes on to cover person B. That is not a passing mention, that's two articles rolled into one. Aecis·(away) ^talk 22:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we are missing something it looks like a simple line of text to clarify to the reader that another person of the same name exists. I dont think one line of text at the bottom as a note can be treated as another article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why we're having this discussion when there's such an easy way out. In general, aviation pioneers appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. The other Stanisław Skarżyński, who was killed in 1920, has an article on the Polish Wikipedia. I don't speak Polish (apart from a few words I picked up in Cracow), but why can't we translate that article into English and put a link to the other Stanisław Skarżyński as a header in both articles? Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Reasonable suggestion just need somebody who reads Polish. MilborneOne (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We could file a translation request. Aecis·(away) ^talk 23:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have filed a request to translate pl:Stanisław Jan Skarżyński into English. Aecis·(away) ^talk 18:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)