Misplaced Pages

talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:59, 30 December 2008 editTavix (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators75,477 edits →The real name of the game, and the relevance of that← Previous edit Revision as of 11:44, 30 December 2008 edit undoDangerousPanda (talk | contribs)38,827 edits →The "(Countryname sportname)" format won't work: stay off my talkNext edit →
Line 68: Line 68:
:: I'm one of many who are in the process (or beginning the process) of undoing a whole busload of Tavix's one-sided changes. <span style="border:3px solid green;">]<font style="color:red;background:white;">'''BMW'''</font>]</span> 14:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :: I'm one of many who are in the process (or beginning the process) of undoing a whole busload of Tavix's one-sided changes. <span style="border:3px solid green;">]<font style="color:red;background:white;">'''BMW'''</font>]</span> 14:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
:::* Many? Where did you get that figure from? ''']''' ] 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC) :::* Many? Where did you get that figure from? ''']''' ] 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
::::: Stay off my talkpage. It's reserved for people actually trying to ''help'' Misplaced Pages by following policy, and not making work for others, and ''especially'' not for those who continue their wanton path of destruction after consensus is against them. <span style="border:3px solid green;">]<font style="color:red;background:white;">'''BMW'''</font>]</span> 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


==Overdisambiguation is not helpful to the reader== ==Overdisambiguation is not helpful to the reader==

Revision as of 11:44, 30 December 2008

Shortcut
This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconManual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
Note icon
This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate.
Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Note icon
For information on Misplaced Pages's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Misplaced Pages policies of Misplaced Pages's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.
WikiProject iconSports
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconGames (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames

ENGVAR

No one should go hog-wild in here over the "sports"/"sport" US/UK distinction. I've already done some checking, and the terminology as used in the projectpage appears to be accurate. One good way to do this is to do site-specific Google searches for whole-phrase search terms at news.bbc.co.uk. Doing so shows clearly that some but not all sport terminology in British English uses "sport" – some of it does in fact typically use "sports". "Sport presenter" is one case where the singular form is clearly preferred, but there are some where it is not. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The "(sportname role)" format is important

This guideline, like the long-standing WP:NCP of which this is a topical application, recommends (strongly!) the Misplaced Pages-wide practice of disambiguating human names in the format "(field role)" or "(one-word-role-in-field)", e.g. "(tennis player)" or "(cyclist)", instead of the unnecessarily and often confusingly truncated "(field)" form, e.g. "(football)". Virtually the only articles on Misplaced Pages that consistently ignore this convention are those on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ice Hockey and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Baseball and maybe one other, though it is starting to creep into other sports-related topics (and even some other ones!) slowly, simply through the process of confusion about what the naming conventions really are.

As WP:NCSP says, the principal problems with this truncated form are a) that it is inconsistent, which is confusing to both readers and editors, and undermines the value of having naming convention guidelines in the first place, and b) that users can be confused about whether an article is about a person or a team (some people have quite strange names, that don't look much like human names), and even more often into thinking that the human name is a brand name of sporting goods (also especially likely when the name isn't "normal" by most people's standards). An unusual name like "Prince Johnston (football)" is very likely to be misinterpreted by readers when it appear next to a truncated disabiguator. This is less of a problem with hockey, of course, but there isn't anything magically special about hockey, that it needs, deserves or should be allowed to just be inconsistent for no practical reason.

We need to resolve this, quickly. Naming conventions are no good if they do not actually establish conventions that are followed. Disambiguations are no good if they actually introduce new ambiguities. There needs to be a lot more input from the general editorship than there has been when this issue was previously raised at WT:NCP - a discussion in which no one participated by myself and a couple of WP:NCP regulars, and (because I specifically invited them directly, and only them, to explain why they were ignoring the guidelines) people from the two or three Wikiprojects doing this ignoring. The result of that entirely lopsided discussion was editing the guideline (WP:NCP) to make room for these unnecessary exceptions, with the result that people get the impression that the guideline doesn't really mean anything and that whoever feels they want an exception for any reason can have one. This will not do.

PS: The principal rationale given by the projects responsible for this truncation has been that some individuals are notable as (for example) players, broadcasters and coaches, and that something like "Joe Bigguns (football player, coach and presenter) would be too long. Well, of course it would, and no one ever proposed that (in fact, the naming conventions don't allow it). The present guideline at WP:NCSP provides a simple solution ("Joe Bigguns (football figure)"), and ergo this long-standing dispute can be quickly resolved. If the participants will take a fresh perspective. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Updated: — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree heartily with these points. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You didn't like the result of the discussion at the main page so you are trying another forum is basically what you are saying? Most people involved in a sport have done more than just be a player (even if its something minor like show up at public appearances to market the team) so using the term (hockey player) instead of (ice hockey) is more often than not too specific. Yes they might be better known for their playing of the game but naming guidelines say to use the least specific information possible which then becomes ice hockey. . As far as resolving this quickly, it was resolved with a change to the main naming standards. The naming conventions currently allow for situations like this, so the naming conventions are being followed. I think this is simply a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm WP:SPLITing a topic with a lot of nuances out of a very general document that is already over-long, just like all the other topical naming conventions pages and MOS sub-guidelines have branched out from their parent projectpages. There has long been support for doing this particular one; the issue has been raised, as it has been for sports-related notability criteria and other sports-related guidelines, at various places, from WT:NCP to WT:SPORT.
I'm also (note how these are separate concerns) pointing out the fact that there are inconsistencies between the handling of sports articles and the handling of every other article type on the site, and that no one has spoken out in favor of this other than the participants in two or three projects, and that this is pretty much my fault, for not having notified anyone of the original discussion other than those who were doing the things that were ignoring the naming conventions. It is time for a broader discussion. I could have re-raised that issue at WT:NCP, but what would be the point of that, given that WP:NCSP has been drafted, clearly shows where the inconsistencies are, and is a more sensible place to resolve the issues?
Secondly, you appear to be completely missing the point of parenthetical disambiguators. Please re-read WP:DAB and WP:NCP closely. They are not to be used to try to encapsulate every fact about a person; they are a very short identifier of the field/endeavor/activity/profession that the subject is most notable for. Your interpretation "naming guidelines say to use the least specific information possible which then becomes ice hockey" is a misreading. Anyway, your example borders on the absurd, since no player of any sport is notable for team-marketing at public events; doing PR is simply part of a pro or notable am player's duties, like showing up for practice and being interviewed by sports journalists. It's like saying that we have to use "(chemistry)" instead of "(chemist)" for chemists, because sometimes chemists aren't acting as chemists but are acting as journal article writers or conference attendees or college professors.
Using "(hockey player)" is not "too specific", it is precisely what is called for in the naming conventions, namely a disambiguator that identifies the person clearly by their field and their role. I think the only reason this issue has arisen at all is that "hockeyist" isn't a word like "golfer". If "golfer" didn't exist, then the DAB for golfers would be "(golf player)" just as it is for billiards players, chess players, etc. Please stop acting if there's something mystically different about ice hockey.
It was not previously resolved. I myself proposed the changes you refer to, for the sole purpose of stopping a verbal fight that was getting out of hand. I never agreed that this ended the larger debate. NB: WP:IDONTLIKEIT is of no relevance here; that's a deletion discussion argument about getting rid of articles/categories. Please read guidelines before citing them.
P.s.: I want to point out how the ice hockey project's insistence, against WP:DAB and without a clear rationale, on using "ice hockey" when "hockey" is a sufficient disambiguator (see separate thread elsewhere on this page), works against this issue. It's a self-defeating vicious cycle, and a red herring. The handful of project members who actually care enough to say anything on these issues essentially say "'ice hockey player' is too long, so surely we have to use 'ice hockey'". The real solution is, of course, to stop trying to come up with your own special DAB rules, and just follow the guidelines. I might as well argue that billiards players have to be identified with DABs like "(three-cushion billiards)" or "(five-pins player)" or whatever, on the basis that these are the proper names of the specific sports played by these players. That is not what disambiguators are for; that's what article prose is for. Both "(billiards player)" and "(hockey player)" are completely sufficient DABs in 100% of cases or very close to that percentage. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes its a deletion discussion arguement, but its applicable to more situations than just that. You just seem to have a hate on for how its being done currently, you say isn't hockey good enough, no because hockey isn't the same sport as ice hockey for most of the world. And adding player to the brackets is overly complicating a dab which should be simple and give just enough information to the reader to disambiguate. using ice hockey instead of hockey player is not going to make things more complicated. In fact it would be exactly the opposite as most people in the world would think of field hockey players instead of ice hockey players. And as far as people thinking that a person was a type of ice hockey or football is rediculous, no one in their right mind is going to make that mistake, and even if they were, chances are if they are looking for that person they already know its a person. And its done its job in giving them enough information to make the it clear that they want that article and not the one about the chemist with the same name. Oh and I think (ice hockey) and (billiards) are sufficient in 100% of the situations. I don't care what the sport is, its applicable to all of them, I even think it applies to most other professions as well. There is no need to disambiguate down to the profession as that is what prose is for. The field of work should be enough to disambiguate. -Djsasso (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Your argument for removing player from the dab seem appropriate for removing ice as well. Where exactly would one come across the link John Doe (hockey player) and believe it's a field hockey player? DoubleBlue (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
(EC) Djsasso, you do not appear to have actually absorbed a single thing I wrote. Almost every argument you've just raised has already been countered, some of them several times on this page. What the full name of ice hockey is is not relevant to the DAB issue, only to the ice hockey article name. You just do not appear to understand how disambiguation is supposed to operate. The draft guideline already explains very clearly why having the dab describe the person (golfer, hockey player, etc.), not the sport (golf, hockey, etc.) is important, and both WP:NCP goes into this as well (or at least it did before I caved in temporarily and let your and the baseball project mess it up). PS: Please do not ascribe wildly negative emotions like "hate" to my participation in Misplaced Pages guideline formation. I have nothing but a constructive, consistency-improving and editor-and-reader-usability perspective on this matter; you on the other hand seem to be defending an idiosyncratic personal preference with rationales that have already been shown to be faulty and improperly cognizant of WP:DAB. Don't make straw man arguments; the draft guideline does not suggest that every single reader will mistake every single case of "Firstname Lastname (sportname)" for something other than what should be "Firstname Lastname (sportname player)", only that this will certainly happen in some cases. The fact that this can happen is precisely why DABed bio article names shifted, site-wide, slowly but inexorably over the years to overwhelmingly prefer to DAB by role, not by field. I.e., there is a massive WP community consensus that DABing simply by field is not sufficient for bio articles. Finally, If you think that the role should be stripped from all disambiguations (Jane Smith (chemistry), Bob Bloggs (cycling), etc), then take that up at WP:NCP; the issue is off-topic here. Given that probably 95% of DABed bio articles here use the role, you're going to meet stiff resistance. So, please stop trying to change the subject. The issue is why ice hockey should get some extra-special exception to a general rule that applies across the entire encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No I see that you think its not relevant. Secondly, I don't think any cases would arise where this confusion would come up, nevermind enough to make it an issue. And you mention overwhelmingly that there is a preference for this, but looking through archives I can find no such preference. What I can find is that it was just simply added at one point and some people started going with it to standardize what was being done. Just like ice hockey has been the standard disambig for 4 or more years. Seems to show overwhelming consensus by the community to be ok with this form of disambiguating otherwise we would have been forced to discontinue it by consensus which has simply never been the case, everytime its come up its gone the way of supporting how its being done. -Djsasso (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I am curious, why is the "sportsname role" format important? Seriously. Why is "hockey player" a better disambiguator than "ice hockey"? Below, you argue that overdisambiguation is not useful, yet here you are arguing overdisambiguation is basically required. In the sense of not overdisambiguating, the sport a person is associated with should be enough in most cases. Thus, Mike Vernon (ice hockey) and Tom Evans (baseball) are by far the simplist disambiguators. Resolute 18:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
For the same reason the role is used in every other field. As WP:NCSP explains (I would think even WP:NCP does, too, but maybe it is less specific), lack of it creates ambiguities (NCSP gives some cases), and a disambiguator that creates new ambiguities or confusions is a failure as a disambiguator. Disambiguators are supposed to be as simple as possible and actually serve their purpose of helping readers. Otherwise we'd have disambiguations like "Jane Smith (anth.)" instead of "Jane Smith (anthropology)". — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That is a fair point for discussion. I think it is a good guideline that the dab describes the person. As SmcCandlish points out, it is the standard. It also makes more sense, in my opinion. John Doe (golfer) rather than (golf), Mercury (planet) rather than (astronomy), etc. There are also cases where the name can make it misleading Eagle Day (football), for instance. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was precisely one of the funny-name examples I recalled encountering but couldn't remember exactly. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
But why is it misleading? Dabs aren't supposed to tell you anything beyond differentiating it from another article of the same name. Football gives enough info to explain it has to do with football and not chemistry. Golf gives enough info to let you know it doesn't have to do with hockey. And astronomy gives enough information to know its not about a car. Dabs are not meant to do anything beyond that, we don't have to know the exact profession, we just have to know what is different between the two. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You sorely misunderstand WP:DAB, then. Again, please actually read it before clouding this debate any further. A handful of key phrases from WP:DAB for you: "direct the reader to the correct specific article" (emphasis added), "equally clear and unambiguous" (emph. added), "use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context" (emph. added; implies "use the same structure/type of disambiguating phrase", too, of course, not a special case for one project that thinks it is somehow different from everyone else editing the encyclopedia). See also WP:NCP: The only example at "Qualifier between bracketing parentheses" that does not follow the "(field role)" or one-word "(role-in-field)" standard format is your project's own self-serving ice hockey example! — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe that you are asking to change the general dab guidelines for all articles to match the conventions drawn up by WP:Baseball and WP:Hockey. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No I am merely pointing out that I don't think ice hockey has some mystical special reason for this like he thinks I/we do. NCP already makes exceptions for sports to use the current naming standards. He wishes to make the change to them, I am happy to leave things be. But if its pushed far enough I will probably make a proposal to change them all. -Djsasso (talk) 20:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur with DoubleBlue; that's precisely what you're doing, as has been pointed out elsewhere. If you want to change the underlying rules being applied by WP:NCSP, you're going to have to get consensus to change them at WT:NCP and WT:DAB. NCP makes exceptions for sports for one reason and one reason only: I thought it was harmful to the project to continue arguing with you, at that time and in that forum, in a debate that was totally lopsided largely because of my own mistake in specifically inviting your project to it instead of filing a WP-wide RFC on the matter, and made the changes myself to get you and two or so other editors to calm down and be quiet for a while. No more, no less. I never stated that I thought an actual consensus had been reached, and I rescind my temporary agreement to cease debating the matter with you. PS: I find it wildly ironic that the changes that I made and am now tring to undo, modify, or get genuine WP-wide consensus to keep, were actually resisted by you and others on your side. It cracks me up that you have now latched onto them. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I am also kind of curious if there are people running around all confused that we use ice hockey. We use ice hockey in every instance and baseball seems to use baseball in every instance, so its not like there is inconsistancy with the labeling from one article to another so there should be no confusion to any reader, it always means it has to do with ice hockey in any capacity or baseball in any capacity. Be it player, team, personnel, terms etc etc. -Djsasso (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Wha...? What sort of non sequitur is this? No one here has suggested that "(ice hockey )" is more "confusing" than "(hockey )". It's simply a bad disambiguator, because it violations WP:DAB by being over-specific, like "particle physics" or "North American mammal". It's not a matter of inconsistency between articles on your pet topic. It's the inconsistency between your articles and 1mil+ other editors' articles. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, a quick look at Category:Toronto Blue Jays players suggests that not all baseball articles are standardized, though (baseball) is the most common. We're pretty much unique in the hockey project. Now, Double blue's example of Eagle Day (football) is quite valid, however this appears to be a very rare exception that generates confusion. The overwhelming majority of articles about sportspeople that require disambiguators will not be met with the same confusion. Thus, I question the value of forcing a change upon literally thousands of articles to satisfy a handful of special cases. Thus, we come again to the point made below regarding overdisambiguation. Eagle Day might require a more specific disambiguator, however that is no reason why Jim Dowd (ice hockey) needs a more specific disambiguation. More importantly, outside of a disambiguation page for Eagle Day, links to such articles will virtually always appear in context, thus eliminating any potential confusion. Resolute 20:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Just as a minor point here, the reason players are not standardized is because there are a LOT of baseball player pages, and we just haven't gotten to them all. I have been personally working on standardization of these pages, but only as a sub-project of another global baseball project, and I've only gotten about 1/3 of the way through it. Also, a fair number of the actual links on that list may be links to redirects. -Dewelar (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well, looking over WP:NCP, it seems we are being sold a pig in a poke. I note the following:

It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach).

In this guideline (not "policy," guideline), I see the term "generally preferred," not "required." I see that the shorter term is acceptable. Nowhere do I find a single line requiring "ice hockey player" or "baseball player" over the shorter forms. What I do see is a POV being pushed by two, and only by two editors, claiming site-wide conformity that does not actually exist. To pick some spots at random, I pulled up Category:African American basketball players, and saw 26 Soandso (basketball) in the first 200; there was not a single "(basketball player)." Pull up the American tennis players category and you'll find 15 (tennis) in the first 200; not a single "(tennis player)." And so on and so forth. The only major sports in which this alleged site-wide consensus seem to be followed are soccer, track and field - in which the shorter and scarcely descriptive "athlete" is used - and partially in football, where (American football) runs an even split with (quarterback) and other such positions. Even given the premise that each WikiProject had to follow a slavish universal convention, no matter how much needless labor it might cause, it would help the couple proponents of this deal for it to actually be as universal as they claim it to be. It is not.  RGTraynor  08:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, this is a draft. Secondly, I did not draft it though I did ask SMcCandlish's advice about whether it was time for such a naming convention page. I believe, however, that the intent of this draft is to develop a guideline that explains and provides examples with regard to sportsperson biographies following the general naming and dab guidelines. The exception you quote is, I'm pretty certain, a recent addition to reflect what WPBaseball had been doing. I think the idea of style guidelines is to reflect a professional consistency in a project that has many contributors and we start with the idea of what is ideal. The dab for people has long been describing the person rather than the field and some reasons why that is a generally good idea have been presented. Should the convention be to make an exception to dabs for which there is no good single word to describe the person (e.g., golfer vs. baseball player)? Should it be that sportsperson bios should have a overall exception that they all describe the sport rather the person (e.g., golf and baseball)? Should we have specific exceptions for baseball and hockey? Should we just state that the general preference is to describe the person but have sub-guidelines that convey specific sport conventions that are different. These can be questions, discussion, and debate. I really do not see the need for this confrontational "evil people trying to enslave WikiProjects" stance. Calm down and discuss what the guidelines should say. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why you want everyone who disagrees with you to calm down. I agree with RGTraynor 100%, and I believe he is being calm. Indeed, WP:NCP doesn't currently say we must use (ice hockey player) or (baseball player). Yes, this is a draft, but I'd really like someone in favor of this draft to explain what conceivable utility can be gained by changing every (ice hockey) page to (ice hockey player) or (ice hockey figure). If you want people to be on board with this idea, you really must do better than accusing other people of being confrontational. Elrith (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The "(Countryname sportname)" format won't work

A handful of editors, most notably Tavix (talk · contribs) have argued haven't actually proposed at all, but have simply decided on their own, that articles about football must be disambiguated in the form "(type-of-football football)". Aside from the fact that this ignores the "(field role)" convention by dropping the role ("player", "coach", etc.), it most often (i.e. except in the case of association football and rugby) leads to the form "(Country-name football)".

This is blindingly obviously unworkable, and the disambig rules already call for country names to used as nationality disambiguators of the subject, not of their field.

Is there anyone other than Tavix who disagrees? — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

PS: Tavix has moved/renamed literally hundreds if not thousands of articles with AWB to disambiguators like "(American football)", even where no further disambiguation was needed and "(football player)" was perfectly fine, and been reverted, more times than I can count. He clearly does not have consensus to do this. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have AWB. I did it all on my own. Tavix (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, okay. Doesn't change anything I've said here other than correcting a minor detail. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I even more strongly agree here. (football player) or (footballer), depending on the ENGVAR, should be the default dab for football players. Further levels of disambiguation is only needed when more than one football player has the same name and is undesirable when players are often notable for multiple codes of football. Even then, forms like "(American football)" is a non-preferred method as it doesn't describe the person, as is standard, and can be misleading for a player who is not of the nationality of the code of football. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of many who are in the process (or beginning the process) of undoing a whole busload of Tavix's one-sided changes. ♪BMWΔ 14:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Stay off my talkpage. It's reserved for people actually trying to help Misplaced Pages by following policy, and not making work for others, and especially not for those who continue their wanton path of destruction after consensus is against them. ♪BMWΔ 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Overdisambiguation is not helpful to the reader

This is really clear in both WP:DAB and WP:NCP: Only disambiguate to the extent necessary. We do not have articles like "Jane Smith (particle physicist)" unless there are two Jane Smith physicists that must be disambiguated.

Given this, there is no reason for the ice hockey project to continue resisting these guidelines and labeling everything "ice hockey", even where there is no field hockey (or whatever) conflict with simply using "hockey". "Ice hockey" is certainly not common usage, either (cf. Misplaced Pages:Common name). "Hockey" in English always means ice hockey, except in very unusual contexts, and if someone is talking about underwater hockey or field hockey or street hockey, they'll say so explicitly. "Ice hockey" is an overly-specific term that isn't commonly encountered except as a formality. It's like using "pocket billiards" instead of "pool", or even more like saying "table billiards" (as opposed to ground billiards, the ancestral game). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Update for clarification: This is not about what the full name of the game is. The full name of football (soccer) is "association football", but we do not use that in DABs. There is no reason to use the full name of ice hockey in DABs. (Note the difference between "in DABs" and "in the name of the ice hockey article"! Completely different issues.) The exception is the very rare case that "(hockey)" is an insufficient disambiguator because an ice hockey and an other-form-of-hockey article both would have the same name. There are actually zero known cases! WP:DAB is crystal clear on this matter. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree. I don't see the need to pre-disambiguate hockey if there's no other hockey player of the same name. (hockey player) should be adequate in the vast majority of cases. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The real name of the game, and the relevance of that

It is because "ice hockey" is the name of the sport. Tavix (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not; it's hockey. People only say ice hockey when there could be confusion about which kind of hockey of which you are speaking. The same is true for football. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Ice hockey. Enlighten yourself. The official name of the sport is "ice hockey". It is referred to as hockey though. Tavix (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Hockey, http://www.answers.com/hockey#US_History_Encyclopedia , http://www.bartleby.com/61/94/H0229400.html , http://www.hockeycanada.ca/ DoubleBlue (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
All western sources. We are trying to be a international ecyclopedia afterall. -Djsasso (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Another red herring. Virtually all sources on English language usage are Western; that is not a WP:BIAS issue; please read that guideline more closely for what sorts of bias it is talking about. And none of this is relevant, since the point is that "ice hockey" is not needed for DAB purposes when "hockey" will do, just as we don't use "association football" or "gridiron football" when "football" will do, since there are no or virtually no article conflicts between ice hockey and other forms of hockey. Are you even reading this? This has already been said before, right here on this page, in the last 24 hours! — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I was countering Tavix's assertion that the name of hockey is ice hockey. It is hockey. There are also other forms of hockey called hockey. We use the descriptor when there is insufficient context to understand which is discussed. This is not needed in a dab. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
But that is my point, the name of the sport is ice hockey. The common usage in a country or two may be hockey, but the actual name of the sport is ice hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I vigorously disagree with you. Perhaps the name is not ice hockey at all but rather, North American ice hockey and International ice hockey. Or actually, more specifics are needed since the rules differ from league to league and level to level. No, the name of the game is hockey; specifically we are speaking of the ice hockey game.DoubleBlue (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that the game of ice hockey came first (and was called exactly that originally, and slowly common ussage in Canada started to drop the word ice). The other versions came after. So you can't say ice hockey is a variation of the game of hockey, field hockey is a variation of the game of ice hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
— SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
1. The exact history of hockey is controversial. Clearly people were playing hockey-like games on land before. 2. Society for International Hockey Research defined "Hockey is a game played on an ice rink in which two opposing teams of skaters, using curved sticks, try to drive a small disc, ball or block into or through the opposite goals." DoubleBlue (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) And being a North American organization, SIHR would naturally favour North American usage. As opposed to the world governing body, the International Ice Hockey Federation. Resolute 19:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The similar games may have existed, but I am talking about the words themselves, they come from an eastern canadian native tribe who had been playing a game for hundreds of years that had the same name, the current name is believed to have been adopted from their game. As far as the SIHR, they are a whole different matter, highly looked down upon in the hockey community. And as resolute mentioned, they are based out of kingston ontario so would naturally use Canadian ussage. -Djsasso (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Tavix, you're missing the point. See WP:DAB: Use the shortest possible disambiguator that is still clear in the context. This is why it's "(footballer)", not "(association footballer)" or "(association football player)". No one is arguing that Ice hockey be moved to Hockey. The main part of an article name is not the same as the disambiguating parenthetical. The latter is supposed to be as short and as general as possible. Using "(ice hockey)" is neither. It is not the short disambiguator that "(hockey)" is, in the same way that "(pocket billiards)" and "(association football)" are not as short as "(pool)" and "(football)". It is not general, but overly-specific, in the same way that "(assocation football)" and "(three-cushion billiards)" are. Sometimes longer and more specific dabs are needed; we all know that. We simply don't use them without a need for further disambiguation. This is really all very obvious. I suggest that you actually read, from top to bottom, both WP:DAB and WP:NCP, and think a lot about how they interact, before commenting further on these topics, as nearly everything you've said about sportsfigure naming conventions – here, at WP:ANI (twice), at your own talk page – has shown a marked lack of understanding of how disambiguators are actually supposed to work, how they differ from the main part of an article name, and what forms they are expected to take. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I would say in 100% of cases now and for the foreseeable future, since most field hockey players are women, it is mostly an amateur sport, and there are no notable street or underwater hockey players, as those are not organized sports with national and international competition; they're like street basketball and swimming pool basketball. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 04:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
That may be a Western perspective, though possibly fair for English Misplaced Pages. When I lived in Korea and told people I play hockey, they often pictured me prancing about on a grassy field with a curved stick. I agree that they're unlikely to be notable though. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Noted. I think my main point is that even if there are WP-notable field hockey players, the odds of any of their names overlapping with ice hockey notables is very low, so there's a near-zero probability of needing to DAB anyone with "(ice hockey)" to begin with. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually there are numerous countries in the world in english where hockey does NOT refer to ice hockey and instead refers to field hockey. There are only actually two countries in the world where hockey pretty much always means ice hockey and that is Canada and the US (and even in chunks of the US its referred to as ice hockey as you head farther south). In some euro countries it often means ice hockey but not always, and in a number of other countries like Austrailia it doesn't mean ice hockey at all. -Djsasso (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Already responded to essentially the same point above. Also, you seem to be mix-'n'-matching your criteria, as you start by talking about English-speaking countries, and then switch to European countries generally (the only English-speaking ones of which are the UK and the RoI); how the word for "hockey" is interpreted in other language is of precisely zero relevance to EnWiki. The point is, as with football, it violates WP:DAB to use an adjective-noun disambiguator when a simple noun one will do. The only time "(ice hockey)" or "(ice hockey player)" is needed is when there's a subject of the same name relating to some other kind of hockey. PS: I live in the (Am.) South, and I have never in my life heard someone, in general conversation, refer to ice hockey as anything but "hockey". Again, none of this is actually relevant, since the issue isn't what the full name of the game is. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Seconding Djsasso's point. Outside of North America, "hockey" usually referrs to field hockey, not ice hockey. Now, of course, being in North America, I tend to favour simply calling the frozen game "hockey". However, as a standard, and recognizing Misplaced Pages's international flavour, we've standardized it as "ice hockey" as a disambiguator. Frankly, I see no great reason to change that. It's simple and it leaves no confusion. Resolute 18:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Why does that mean that the dab should be (ice hockey)? Why not go farther with the dab, then? (Canadian player of ice hockey in the National Hockey League)? If there is no other player with the same name who plays hockey, disambiguating hockey is of no use. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It should be "(hockey)" and, for players, "(hockey player)", for the same reason it's "(football)" and "(footballer)"/"(football player)" (depending on WP:ENGVAR and game type), unless the specific case requires further disambiguation. This is really, really basic DAB stuff, going back years. It doesn't matter what the full name of the game is; this is not a WP:BIAS issue and DABs should not be confused with the main part of an article name, which should use the full name of the game. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that that needlessly complicates things, the sport is called ice hockey, not hockey. So right off the bat we should use ice hockey. And secondly, having two different disambiguators is overly complicated. There is no need to differentiate ice hockey and ice hockey player. All that is needed to know is that the subject has to do with ice hockey, we don't need to know what their profession is within ice hockey. -Djsasso (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The sport is hockey. The type is ice hockey. (ice hockey) does not tell us whether it's professional, semi-professional, or amateur ice hockey. It doesn't tell us whether it's North American ice hockey or International ice hockey. It doesn't tell us whether it's junior hockey, minor hockey, pond hockey, shinny, or underwater ice hockey. It doesn't need to any more than it needs to tell us the birthplace, age, education, or statistics. It just needs to differentiate between people with the same name. There is no problem that I can see with having John Doe (author), John Doe (golfer), John Doe (hockey player), and John Doe (politician). DoubleBlue (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
To maintain a set standard. That is, somewhat ironically, it seems, the entire point of your crusade, is it not? Resolute 18:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
My crusade? You may have me mistaken for someone else. And the standard is to use the most general useful dab. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was intending to mean the plural you, not referring to you specifically. I should have said, "...the point of this crusade". Resolute 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
We already have a set standard, the clear wording of WP:DAB, and WP:NCP (particularly its tighter wording before hockey and baseball special interests mangled it with my own complicity, which I now most strongly repent). — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 19:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Except that that standard changed with concensus and is now a different standard. -Djsasso (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, you don't seem to be actually understanding anything I'm writing. Let's try this again. I made those changes myself, as a temporary measure, to get you to shut up for a little while and calm down about the matter, because the debate was getting out of hand. And you actually resisted the changes you are now defending. There was no consensus. There was me pointing out a problem, and you and someone from WP:BASEBALL and I think someone from another sports project, flying into a wild tirade about the matter, leading to a really ugly, pointless debate that was going nowhere at all. I chose to back off for a while in the interests of civility. The matter did not die. The problems caused by User:Tavix and his mass-moves of articles, moves that from what I can tell no one else on the system supports, are one indicator that this issue is far from dead. — SMcCandlish ‹(-¿-)› 20:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
And here we are again with the same "pointless, ugly debate", and thus far, you seem to be the only one who's losing their cool. Are you expecting a different result? Resolute 20:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You may have physically added the words but they were the result of a discussion that you were extremely out numbered in. All you did was give in to consensus so don't try to pass off that this was never the result of a consensus discussion and that it was your choice to add them, it wasn't it was the choice of a large number of people in a discussion. -Djsasso (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Which projects were notified of this discussion? DoubleBlue (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't remember as I wasn't involved in that. I just remember that SM notified a very large number of projects last time. And in the end it was basically just him arguing against the way things are currently done. The discussion did involve a large number of people as I recall. I would have to go look through archives at NCP to check. -Djsasso (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I need clarification, folks. Is the proposal this? X (ice hockey) be moved to X (hockey), for hockey player bio articles? GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the full proposal would result in X (ice hockey) being moved to X (ice hockey player) (or whatever role X played). It's possible, though, that it's to be moved to X (hockey player) pending other parts of the discussion. -Dewelar (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll go along with whatever's chosen. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on this explanation of the proposal, I strongly oppose it. I see no pressing reason for this whatsoever and am not convinced by the arguments above nor do I see how this could be the slightest bit helpful to readers. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe Rjd0060 might be (unusually) missing the point slightly. My understanding is that the sort of specificity noted in that diff would only arise when there are multiple people of the same name involved in the same sport or sporting field. See Baseball Bugs' commentary, below. // roux   17:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not missing the point. I understand this proposal and strongly object to it. Thanks. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I oppose this idea for several reasons. As a note, the idea that "hockey" must automatically mean "ice hockey" is pure systemic bias. Misplaced Pages isn't in North America. But more to the point, the idea of changing every NHL coach who also played to "ice hockey figure" is ridiculous. As I understand this proposal, we would have to have Craig MacTavish (ice hockey figure), which gives the bizarre impression that MacTavish was a team mascot or columnist. What's wrong with this disambiguation, and why should it be changed? It seems insane to me to insist on Don Cherry (ice hockey figure) or something similar, when Don Cherry (ice hockey) does a perfect job?
As my last point, I oppose spending time and energy on arguments like this. Elrith (talk) 06:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
You haven't seen the recent history on this issue. Baseball Bugs 11:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Then don't spend your time and energy on this. There is a misconception from WP:HOCKEY that this is a vote or proposal, it is only a draft at this point. Hockey does not automatically mean ice hockey in an international context like this but we also need not disambiguate the disambiguator if there is no other hockey person with the same name. Does ice hockey automatically mean NHL? Ought we disambiguate all ice hockey players with the league they are in as well? It's bias to assume a hockey player is in the NHL (or assume in IIHF or whatever one chooses to assume) but the dab ain't an article, it's a means to have multiple articles with the same name. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
And there is a misconception that a draft proposal isn't a proposal. -Djsasso (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
It ain't a proposal until it's completed. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You only need to disambiguate to a sufficient level. Consider Hobey Baker, a famous ice hockey and football player of the early 1900s. He's standalone, because either there are no other Hobey Bakers, or he is by far the most widely known. If there was a Hobey Baker (author), who was just as famous, you would need to disambiguate the first one to Hobey Baker (something). That "something" could be ice hockey, but it could just as well be hockey, given that there are no famous field hockey players named Hobey Baker. He was also a football player, so you could generalize it further to Hobey Baker (athlete). Baseball Bugs 14:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Technically, I believe (athlete) is reserved these days for track and field articles, so it'd be Hobey Baker (sportsperson) or similar. It does get rather sticky sometimes. -Dewelar (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Good heavens, I agree with Elrith on something; now the Millenium can come. That being said, the (ice hockey) convention was derived by consensus to disambiguate from field hockey, street hockey and the like; field hockey at least, outside North America, often drops the "field" from its nomenclature. If you disagree with that consensus, come on over to the ice hockey WikiProject and attempt to change it. In the meantime, we might actually know what we're doing over there.  RGTraynor  21:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think WP:HOCKEY needs to take this so personally. Could you please explain why there is a need to disambiguate hockey in a dab when there is no field or other hockey person with the same name? DoubleBlue (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Why does it matter? The parenthetic part is only intended as a visual cue, in order to disambiguate. If you have John Smith who is connected with either ice hockey or field hockey, then John Smith (hockey) is sufficient to anyone who's looking for him on the disambiguate page. If there's one of each, then you need to specify ice hockey for one and field hockey for the other. Baseball Bugs 02:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
(waves to RGTraynor) Just because I feel strongly about something doesn't mean I'm insane about everything. =) Actually, in my opinion the Jim Hickman example is a really bad way to do this. "Outfielder" isn't clear to everyone. For all I know, an outfielder might be a cricket outfielder (if there is such a thing) or a NASCAR mechanic. Why isn't it Jim Hickman (1910s baseball player)? That would make much more sense. Similarly, I believe that having "(ice hockey)" immediately tells anyone who sees the link that the player in question is an ice hockey player. For example, Don Cherry (ice hockey) tells you more than Don Cherry (hockey).
They would only go to the disambig page due to several guys named Jim Hickman. If they're looking for the ballplayer, there will be no confusion. They will already know that he's a ballplayer, and they'll know that an outfielder is a type of ballplayer. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides, aren't we sidetracked? I thought the original proposal would call for Don Cherry (ice hockey figure), and I still maintain that's crazy. Doubleblue, you didn't answer that question. For what it's worth, there's absolutely no problem with disambiguating hockey players; I think we have that in hand nicely; the stuff about having to disambiguate by league is just a straw man. Elrith (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Assuming there's another Don Cherry around, such as Don Cherry (author), then Don Cherry (hockey) is sufficient. "Ice hockey" is redundant detail. Anyone who comes to the disambig page looking for one or the other is not going to be confused. They will already know they are looking for the ice hockey player, and will not be confused by simply "hockey". Baseball Bugs 10:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was a rhetorical question asked of no one in particular. The proposed draft on the main page calls for Don Cherry (hockey figure), if he's equally notable as a coach and a broadcaster (which I think he probably is). I see nothing particularly "insane" about that but I would like to have a sane discussion in another section about exactly how we would handle cases like that; I have some different ideas but no strong preference yet. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, to make a long story short: in my humble opinion the name of the sport is ice hockey, and "ice hockey figure" is unhelpful overdisambiguation. "Ice hockey" over "hockey" carries information and is therefore useful; "ice hockey figure" over "ice hockey" does not, and is therefore not useful. (My opposition to "hockey figure", or what I find insane is that to me, "ice hockey figure" sounds like a mascot, TV personality or reality show celebrity or something like that, not a Stanley Cup and Jack Adams trophy winner. But it's possible that's just me.) Elrith (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is so much taking things personally, as not understanding why this is such a big deal to you. Basically, the article on the sport is Ice hockey. Every biographical article on a player says "John Doe is an ice hockey player from...". Ditto teams: "The Calgary Flames are a professional ice hockey team...". Categories: Category:Ice hockey in Calgary. Because the main article is titled at ice hockey, we've therefore followed this convention all the way through. When it came down to standardizing dabs for articles within our field, we maintained the set standard. I get what you are saying about using just "hockey" rather than "ice hockey", but at this point, it really is, or should be, a moot discussion. There is no need at all to waste countless man hours moving hundreds of articles, and fixing the thousands of redirects that would result. I know I sure as hell wouldn't waste my time on it, and I damn well hope that if it were somehow decided to change this convention, that you would be fixing the mess such a pointless change would create. Resolute 07:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Err ... DoubleBlue, given the tenor of some of yours and SMcCandlish's own comments, I wouldn't be at all sanguine in your shoes of talking about taking this issue too personally. That aside, as with any other issue, we agree with the positions with which we agree, disagree with the positions with which we disagree, and advocate our stances as passionately (or not) as we see fit to do.  RGTraynor  08:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know which comments of mine you find are of an inappropriate tone. It wasn't intentional. I would just rather this draft continued to progress rather than turn into a sudden call to attack and defend. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Attacking and defending is what happens when you start a proposal that has such a large impact such as this. If you don't want to deal with these things, then don't create proposals. Tavix (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Please disabuse yourself of that idea. Misplaced Pages is a consensus decision-making organisation and the process involves proposals, discussion, and convincing with rationales until a consensus is reached. Attacking and defending is, at best, of no use and, at worse, harmful to the project and, in the middle, harmful to having your point of view taken seriously. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It's the same thing! You put forth your idea, and then you must defend it while people attack your idea with their own opinions and values. Tavix (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

The purpose of these parenthetic qualifiers is simply to categorize them. John Smith (hockey) would be perfectly fine, be it ice hockey or field hockey. Just as John Smith (football) would be perfectly fine, no matter what brand of football. Because all you're really trying to do is differentiate from John Smith (architect) or whatever. There would be no ambiguity and no confusion to someone who's looking for a particular John Smith. The only confusion would be if there's more than one. So John Smith (Association football)/John Smith (soccer) vs. John Smith (American football). That's the only situation where it's needed.

And having written all that, the possible issue begins to emerge. I'm just not sure it's a major issue. That's for discussion. Let's say there's currently only a John Smith (football), who happens to play soccer. Now, along comes another John Smith, who plays Australian Rules Football. So we add him. And now we have two "John Smith (football)". Obviously, that won't work. So they both need to be renamed: John Smith (soccer) and John Smith (Australian football). And the reason you have to rename both of them is that this is the English wikipedia, and to the vast majority of native English speakers, "football" refers to whatever the predominant football game is in their own country, and for that vast majority it is most definitely NOT soccer. That's why it's called "soccer", because to call it "football" would be confusing. Someone looking for their native land's football player, and clicking on the soccer player because it says "football", compels them to step back and try again.

The problem, to the extent that it's a "problem", is the double-renaming. So if you already start with (soccer) or (whatever-football), then you won't have to do a rename if another one comes along. However, that's simply janitorial work. When you move John Smith (football) to John Smith (soccer), it will create a redirect. And that kind of issue comes up all the time in all areas on wikipedia, so it's just tedium, and not necessarily any big deal.

In summary, I argue that a sample disambig list should look like this (I'm leaving out "player" here just for simplicity. That's a separate discussion.) With this approach there is no confusion or ambiguity, and it pre-empts the need for future renames, which may or may not matter:

  • John Smith (actor)
  • John Smith (architect)
  • John Smith (American football)
  • John Smith (Association football) or John Smith (soccer)
  • John Smith (Australian football)
  • John Smith (British athlete) for someone who excelled in both cricket and soccer, for example
  • John Smith (Canadian football)
  • John Smith (field hockey) might not be a player, could be a coach or something
  • John Smith (Ice hockey)

If there is currently only one notable member of each general category, then this would suffice, just with the caveat that the above standard would have to be used if and when it becomes necessary:

  • John Smith (actor)
  • John Smith (architect)
  • John Smith (football)
  • John Smith (hockey)

Baseball Bugs 10:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

  • endorse Bugs' proposal. Sane, simple. Not addressed here, but the addition of "player" is silly; lots of playes become coaches, etc... just have "football" and the article will take care of the rest.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • endorse - this is basically what NCP says anyway. Use the top-level disambiguator, and only move to more and more specific versions when explicitly necessary due to the addition of other names within the same category. // roux   17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Good discussion. I agree that pre-disambiguating the specific code of any sport is unnecessary, counter to the general dab logic of the most general clear disambiguator, and a significant disadvantage when many players play more than one code of the sport. What do you think of the The "sport named for a country" problem? Isn't athlete generally left to track & field? I trust we'll discuss the "player" part later but without it, it seems odd that actor and architect aren't drama and architecture. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • It's a little odd to mix "actor" and "football", but there is still no ambiguity about it. The purpose is not to fully define the subject in explicit detail, it's only to provide just enough to disambiguate from someone else. Baseball Bugs 21:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • And I see what you mean about the inherent (ironic) ambiguity of "Canadian football player". You could say "Canadian Football League player", for example. And again I say, we're not trying to fully define the guy's career in one sentence, we're just trying to make it sufficiently easy for the reader to figure out which one it is. Baseball Bugs 21:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not just "gridiron?" As they're not really separate games (and players go from one league to the other all the time). It would seem to me when "football" needs to distinguished as the variety involving giant men in large helmets and tight pants then "gridiron" is the best general option.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Gridiron is little used in North America except as an occasional nickname amongst enthusiasts and I suspect many outside of them would not know it means football. It is mentioned on the main page proposal as a dab solution for those who are notable for both American and Canadian football but whose name is shared by another code of football but is not a preferred first step, I suppose, because it is not the common name of the game. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse although the "correct" dab according to consensus for soccer players is "footballer" Although I really don't see what is that different from what is happening right now. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Good point. Footballer is actually a good and useful word that, unfortunately, is rather foreign in North America. I think it would be unnecessary to change footballer to either soccer or Association football unless, perhaps, it is a North American player. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As I understand WP:NCP, this is more or less exactly what it says. And don't several disambiguations already work like this anyway? As near as I can tell, there's no proposal here to support as all this is already in WP:NCP. Elrith (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The point, I believe, of the proposal is not to change the NCP but to better clarify and explicate the guidelines with regard to sportspeople as there has been confusion on how to apply them and it would unnecessarily overload the NCP page to continue to explain and add examples there. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Keep in mind this is supposed to be a visual cue to the reader. Whether it says "football" or "footballer" or "football player" doesn't really matter, because any of those will be sufficent to tell the reader which John Smith he's looking for. Baseball Bugs 11:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse:  RGTraynor  21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Categories:
Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople): Difference between revisions Add topic