||This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
The language in the article is a mess, needs to be re-written, possibly from scratch. I had a go at fixing a bit, but not knowing what it's meant to say it's quite difficult. Яehevkor ✉ 10:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- It's very strange your reaction! This article has more than two years in Wikipedia, and a lot of visits, and nobody has said a world about that mess!!!
--Virg38 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe no one tried to read it until now.. Яehevkor ✉ 19:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Like you erase the stats... there was almost 1000 visits by month!!!!! --Virg38 (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't erase any stats. I don't think anyone can do that. Яehevkor ✉ 22:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
To clarify some of the issues with the article. The wording of the article is not only simply bad, but it's not neutral, it's written as if to promote the artist, rather than simply inform. As for the conflict of interest notice, the creator of the article was User:Soizik, this name indicates they are perhaps the spouse of the article subject, or at the very least someone with a close connection, this only exacerbates the above neutrality issue. As for re-writting the article, it looks like it was machine translated (a copy paste of the French article?), or translated by someone who doesn't speak English very well at all, a lot of it simply doesn't make sense, making fixing it extremely difficult for someone unfamiliar with the subject. All these are pretty major issues, and can't simply be ignored. The article may have existed for 2 years but this doesn't cancel out the issues that exist now. Яehevkor ✉ 22:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
- I used Google Translator, french to english, to remake the Zamor's article.
It seems that the result is not the same as the one published in english. Your can see this in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Notadicht/sandbox
Why did you sugested the oppose?
And you said "As for the conflict of interest notice, the creator of the article was User:Soizik, this name indicates they are perhaps the spouse of the article subject,", and you are quite wrong, Zamor's spouse first name is Françoise (you can read it in the articles published by the newspapers). If you don't like Zamor's face you can not refuse all he does and what the people talks about him. Are you really neutral?--Notadicht (talk) 15:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was going by the information in this article: "Spouse Soizik Philippe". Яehevkor ✉ 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- You can remove your announce and, if you think this article is a mess, you have two choises: so you make the corrections (but it seems you don't understand the subject), or you delete de page.
Otherwise it seems that's is you who are not neutral in this affair. Maybe are you concerned directly by the subject, against him?--Notadicht (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Heh. No, I have no conflict of interest :) Яehevkor ✉ 23:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- I corrected the first two paragraphs to make it sound more like native english, I'll correct the rest as soon as possible.188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived 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: the pages were not moved. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
– All the pages in Wikipedia about Zamor (in French, Spanish and Italien) , are named "Zamor". And Zamor is not only un artist, is also a philosopher, writer, historian, etc. The actually page named "Zamor" in English refers to Louis Benedict Zamor, who can be named by his own first and last name, because he has not been translated to other languages, and his article doesn't have the same value. To continue the work with the Zamor's translations is required the unity of the URL in all the laguages. Virg38 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
- Strong oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. I'm sorry, but I reject the assertion that the article on the French revolutionary "doesn't have the same value." I can find solid references to that Zamor in published book-length scholarship (just by searching Googlebooks "Zamor Countess du Barry" I get , , , , without wading far into results), but have yet to find Guillerm Zamor in an actual book—he's a minor living artist who has sufficient clips for minimum notability (all the sources I've checked so far are mere notices, many in relatively local publications, and no major profile or extended criticism—please point them out if I've overlooked them). Also, the proposed article title for the French revolutionary is incorrect on two accounts:
- Wikipedia doesn't place the last name first (not
Adams, John Quincy).
- The French revolutionary's name was not, as far as I can determine, Louis Benoît Zamor: he was given the "Christian name" Louis Benoît, but Zamor seems either to have been his birth name, or the name he went by.
- If the Zamors need to be disambiguated (there's also Oreste Zamor, a stub easily expanded), the artist should be called by his birth name. The first sentence can note that he is known professionally as Zamor. The French revolutionary could be disambiguated in some other way, if necessary—but I'm not convinced. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose to -Strong oppose- Maybe the sentence "and his article doesn't have the same value". was misunderstood by you, it didn't make reference to the person but to the article itself.
And if you mean by "local publications" the fact to be criticize by the most eminent critics in the world of Art (Paris, New York, Bogotá, Puerto Rico, Venezuela, Greece,) I beleive that the most articles in wikipedia must to be erased. For exemple you can talk about the virtual weapons "Zamor bionicle" or the fighter "zamor" as well as something historical! And Zamor, is doing and will do history with the Zamor's Museum and Foundation with a new point of view about art in the whole world. One day you will regret your words about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virg38 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Mr Cynwolfe answer:
His notability is attested by widespread but fairly slim sources (some, I said, seem rather local; and the supposed link to Le Figaro, for instance, doesn't actually go to their site, but it looks like an ad or listing to me). I don't see a level of coverage that would justify regarding this figure as the primary topic (again, see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for the name "Zamor" on English Wikipedia, especially since none of the cited sources are in English. Both Oreste Zamor and the French revolutionary Zamor are more common in Anglophone sources. Some of the more substantial reviews or features on the artist refer to him as "Guillerm Zamor" or "Guillermo Zamor," so I don't see why the title of his article should lack a first name. Cynwolfe (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Refute to -Strong oppose-
I'd like to mention that Zamor is also a Brand French  registered in INPI, France, in 2003 to protect and Copyright © all the creations by Zamor Guillermo.
This is a real priority and legal argument, but I was looking for the reference before to bring it here.
I can find also solid references to this Zamor in just by searching in Google "Zamor guillerm". I get 15 pages, at least, with all the activities he does
Otherwise, the reference to the book about Louis Benoît Zamor,was joined by me (you can verify my contribution). I'm also interested in researche and translate his biography because I know quite well this personage. So, the French revolutionary could be disambiguated in some other way, like "Louis Benoît Zamor", or Louis Benedict Zamor.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Virg38 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see why English Wikipedia has to follow what other wikipedias do, since every wikipedia has different standards. Though making "Zamor" a disambiguation page is fine by me. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose: The French Bengali character is far more historic and relevant. But for fairness, I suggest we could make Zamor as the main disambiguation page and both listed as secondary pages. In fact I have now added two more persons carrying the surname Zamor, one of them president of Haiti no less to render Zamor as the disambiguation page. Please refer to Zamor (disambiguation) werldwayd (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- How about Zamor (Louis Benoît) for the French revolutionary, and a redirect of Zamor (French revolutionary)? Or something like that. I was somewhat surprised at the minimal stub we had for the Haitian president, given the solid sources that turned up when I searched. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Refute to -Oppose-
Anywhere you will always win, being editors. So do what you want. You can ad also the virtual weapons "Zamor bionicle" or the fighter "zamor". And now I see "Zamora"! It exist too Zamorano! Your desimbiguation is full of envy and little power! So good luck. The contributors can only close their mouth.
"Zamor", as a legal and registered brand, has the legal right to has ask for his name in first place. Do what you want, The Brand's register will be informed.
And you can erase too the Zamor artist's page, it's a mess, like you say! (Of course, only when it interest you, editors, but whenever you want you understand quite good!!!)
I retire myself from this lose of time with ignorant people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virg38 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 12 January 2013
I'm quite disagree whit most of the reactions against the philosopher, artist and writer "Zamor", who is creating a Foundation with a new concept of Art and Humanities. Some dicuss here are completly wrong about him. Really disappointed.--Notadicht (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
Or, possibly, "Language, still". I have made some corrections to the language, tried to take out some of the promotional material, correct the tenses, and so forth; it still isn't perfect, but parts of it are enormously difficult to understand. The lead, for example, which is perhaps the most important section of any article, contains links to realism and hyperrealism, and the latter of those doesn't seem at all helpful, as the article at the other end contains little or nothing which can be applied to the technique of Zamor as an artist. Not only that, but it also contains the sentence in surrealism the absurd elements are evident, but in suprarealism the absurd go into the logic of seeing, being in fact unnoticed (quoted, uncited, from the artist himself), which i cannot make sense of; possibly the fault lies in the translation, but since no source is given there is no way to verify it or retranslate it into actually meaningful English.
There is still more to do with cleaning up the language; i shall try, but i find it frustrating to do so, thus if anyone else comes along...please jump in! Cheers, LindsayHello 17:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Just stopping by to applaud your willingness to take this on. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2013 (UTC)