Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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[s] 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The "(sportname role)" format is important

This [draft, at present] guideline, like the long-standing WP:NCP of which this is a topical application, recommends (strongly!) the Wikipedia-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 Wikipedia that consistently ignore this convention are those on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey and Wikipedia: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 [draft] 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Updated: — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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, [ice] 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 Wikipedia 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [player])" is more "confusing" than "(hockey [player])". 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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.  Ravenswing  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 Ravenswing 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• But it does show that you can be wrong. Tavix (talk) 05:46, 28 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)

• Many? Where did you get that figure from? Tavix (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Stay off my talkpage. It's reserved for people actually trying to help Wikipedia 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)

• The comments are there for a reason, and they will continue to be there at least until you can answer my question. My edits were not vandalism but a good faith edit. See WP:FBNC for my explaniation. If you would actually read it, you might actually come to a conclusion that my edits were not done in bad faith, no matter how much you disagree with the matter. Tavix (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• He has the right to remove the comments as its his talk page, that being said I don't see how they were objectionable and I find his comments here a bit on the bad faith side. So I would ask you both to step back and breath a bit. Keep the discussion on the topic at hand and not on the editors. -Djsasso (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• It's okay, we've got everything sorted out now (at least from my standpoint, I don't know how BMW is doing though). Tavix (talk) 05:37, 31 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes. My solution, in the past, was to dab (CFL player). DoubleBlue (talk) 21:13, 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed though it's nice style to have consistency and it's handy for editors to easily predict a dab when linking or select one when creating. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse:  Ravenswing  21:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse first list only See section below. What you call "simple janitorial work" is unnecessary work to begin with. Just name everyone with the first list and we won't have to worry about them ever again. And it's easy for editors at each project to have only one way of naming, not two. Each disamb link is fixed once and forever. --2008Olympian^chitchat 01:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see discussion at WP:NFL#Naming conventions

These are the guys that do all the heavy lifting on the NFL pages, I would suggest taking their views into account. The support there is just to stick with the dismbiguations that BaseballBugs has in his first list only, due to the confusion that is caused by the use of the word football to be interpreted as soccer.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:06, 6 March 2009 (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. Wikipedia: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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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."[1] 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

That may be a Western perspective, though possibly fair for English Wikipedia. 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 Wikipedia'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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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 [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 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)

• Thank you, and I agree with Rjd's statement. Finally someone else that gets it. Tavix (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• I used to be content with the general WP:NCP guidelines as well but it has become clear to me that those guidelines need further explanation and examples with regard to sportpeople articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 07:22, 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. Wikipedia 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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.  Ravenswing  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)

• Well, it is because they play "ice hockey". They aren't playing another form of hockey like "field hockey", "street hockey", or even "underwater hockey" Tavix (talk) 22:46, 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• For comparison, consider Jim Hickman (1910s outfielder) and Jim Hickman (1960s outfielder). Those disambiguations don't even mention baseball. Nor do they need to. Because whoever is looking at all the Jim Hickmans and looking for a ballplayer will almost certainly already know what an outfielder is and which decade he played in. Simmilarly, "ice hockey" is not necessary. "Hockey" will do fine, no matter which variation of hockey it is, as long as only one hockey player has that name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• But they aren't just hockey players! They are ice hockey players! It's oversimplifying things way too far. Tavix (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• No, it isn't. There is no confusion to someone who goes to the disambig page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(waves to Ravenswing) 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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 ^{What's up, Doc?} 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.  Ravenswing  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. Wikipedia 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)

• Please don't create future work. Just call name the articles (ice hockey) from the beginning. That way, everyone knows what to do from the beginning, and we won't have to disambiguate later. It's easy for the projects to remember and it's informative as a bonus.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
  • And to what illogical conclusion would you take that? Should all hockey dabs be (American 1990s ice hockey forward) variety just in case?

Naming conventions

Stale

 – It was proposed that this be advertised, but it wasn't, and now 9 months have passed.

The following discussion is being moved here from WT:WikiProject National Football League for background.

Copied from WT:WikiProject National Football League

[User: Tavix] has written a thoughtful commentary on naming conventions for football players at WP:FBNC. There has been a discussion on several user talk pages about this, but an admin wanted consenus, so it needs to be on a non-user page. Please weigh in.

• Comment: Tavix is dead on in how he is naming these articles. "American, Canadian, etc. football" distinguishes the articles from what "football" is known as in 90% of the world: soccer. This has been how the player articles have been named at WP:NFL for a long time. WP:QUALIFIER states pretty clearly that

  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).

  --2008Olympian^chitchat 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NCP. The ongoing effort to clarify its implications for sportspeople is at WP:NCSP. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that American/Canadian etc. football is better than football player, because although I think it's stupid, most countries call soccer football, so "football" fans can become confused by this.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Football does not mean soccer. It is an umbrella term for many sports. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. :P--Giants27 ^T/C 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is why it is good. There is no reason to disambiguate the code of football until there is a clash of names of two people with the same name who are both notable for playing football. The default dab for football players should be (football player) and WP:QUALIFIER makes that clear. The dab describes the person not the sport. The disambiguation rule is to use the most general, descriptive dab. This is a wise guideline for many reasons, one of which is that for players of multiple codes of football, there is no reason to define the code of football until there is a clash of two people with the same name who both played a form of football. I repeat that there is no reason to define the code of football in the dab unless there are two people with the same name who both played a form of football. The dab does need dabbing. In fact, it is harmful and would lead to ridiculous lengths to do so. The rule is, rather, to use the most general, descriptive, dab that would not have another article of the same name. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're creating too much work. Just disamb all the American, Canadian, etc. football players the same way. Why have two different disambiguations? Uniformity is a good thing. "Football" is useless as a disamb.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, a lot of players play multiple codes of football. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not happen often, and when combined with the infrequent need to disambiguate and that usually one particular league dominates that player's experience, it is going to be obvious which league name to use.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And why not the other way around? Just disamb all the American, Canadian, etc. football players the same way. Why have two different disambiguations? Uniformity is a good thing. Use (football player). Then if there are two football players with the same name, the disambiguation can be chosen. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First, that's the way most of the articles are currently. Second, a football player is a soccer player to 90% of the world. --2008Olympian^chitchat 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The dab is not an article and does not describe what the article is about, it is simply a method to have different file name for two articles with the same name. The lead of the article describes what the article is about. The only places we find these dabs are on disambiguation pages where they are accompanied by a description and when an editor is making a link in an article. There is nowhere for someone to be confused by the dab (football player) meaning soccer anyway. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: because of WP:NPOV, we can't use "football" as every other country besides Canada and the United States uses "football" for soccer. Since Wikipedia is a worldwide collaboration, we can't do that. So, we must move on to a more suitable dab. Obviously (Canadian football player) is much too long of a dab and because of WP:QUALIFIER, we must use a simpler, and more general dab exactly what you say so we shorten it to (Canadian football). There shouldn't be a problem if a person played both codes, so you would use (gridiron football). Tavix (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, no. Football is not exclusive to soccer. It is an umbrella term that encompasses many forms of ball sports. A neutral point of view recognizes that it not owned by any particular code but is rather a general encompassing word similar to using "musician" for the many meaning that has. WP:DAB and WP:NCP endorses using the most general, descriptive word for the qualifying term. Secondly, I don't buy that Canadian football player is too long of a dab. I don't actually have a big problem with the term "gridiron" but there are more preferable steps before resorting to that one. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, actually 292/294 countries use "football" as soccer. Just because you live in that little bubble that doesn't refer to soccer as football, doesn't mean that you are right, and 99.3% of the world is wrong. Tavix (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to your WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I still use it. Can you explain?

This is from a... I can't even say the s-word... fan, even though it might be ambiguous, if I understand it correctly this is about "Thomas Edward "Tom" Brady, Jr. (born August 3, 1977) is an American football quarterback for...", am I right? I think the best usage would be for all different codes to use this style "is an [[United States|American]] [[American football|football]] player" for american american football players, and go by the players sporting nationalities common usage, so for example the only european american football player I know of Morten Andersen would've been when he was active "is a [[Danish people|Danish]] [[American football]] player", and somone like Clint Dempsey would be (as it is) "is an [[United States|American]] [[Association football|soccer]] player", just how I would do it ch¹⁰ · 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Opps, this seems not to be about that... But I think my last comments still show what my preference would be, American american football players go on "name (football player)", for example danish am. football players would be on "name (American football player)", American soocer players on "name (soccer player)" or perhaps "name (footballer)" ch¹⁰ · 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While I have long been a proponent of "American football" and "Canadian football" as disambiguations, and while I still remain against "football player" as one, I think there is a better way. Quite simply, I think the disambiguation should be "gridiron football".

For starters, that is where the sport is located in this encyclopedia, so it definitely makes sense.

Secondly, it does away with the confusion caused when players player in multiple leagues, such as the AFL, NFL, CFL, etc. It seems to me this is a simple, hassle-free disambiguation that would never need to be revisited again.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 09:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think the first step should be (football player) but if there is another player with the same name who plays a different code of football, then I agree that (gridiron player) is a good idea and I support that. It also follows the idea better of going from the most general to the more specific. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly sticking to this thing about describing the person, not the sport, but tell me - what is the downside to a disambiguation of "gridiron football"? Why is that worse than "gridiron player"? And, why would it not be better, since some people are not just famous for playing the sport, or not famous for it at all?

For example, what if there was another Tony Sparano and his page needed to be disambiguated? You couldn't use "gridiron player" since he wasn't notable for that. He wouldn't have a Wikipedia article based on his playing, as he would not meet notability guidelines. So you're suggesting "gridiron coach"?

What about someone like Jeff Ireland, who was a placekicker at Baylor. Once again, his playing career is not notable on Wikipedia, and thus he would not have an article here if that's all he had done. He's also never been a football coach. But he's been an NFL scout and is not a general manager. So what do you suggest? "gridiron executive"?

I feel like you are so concerned about this line you find in a policy about the disambiguation describing the person, not the sport, that you're not entertaining the idea of which disambiguation is the most productive or simply the best. You're content just saying "because that's the way it is."

But quite frankly, if you or anyoen else can tell me one downside to a disambiguation of "gridiron football" for all gridiron football players/coaches/executives of all gridiron leagues, I'd love to hear it. From my view, there isn't one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK: The problem with "(gridiron player)" is that the term is not that familar to Americans and Canadians, and it's not what they call their sports. (Tanatmount to calling all "footballers" as "Soccer players".) Secondly, the "sport" is not "gridiron football", but American football and Canadian football - 2 separate but closely related sports. The Gridiron football article is about the term and its use in other countries outside of North America, not the sports. Just use the name the sports actually go by in the countries in which they were developed and primarily played, same as with "association football". But if someone still prefers a more general term, just use ("ball player)". That should solve the problem when there are no other ball players with the same name, and it covers most multiple sports players too, other than Hockey of course. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a relevant enough term to have an article in this encyclopedia, it's relevant enough to be a disambiguation, plain and simple.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. It certainly won't be very popular, so you're just going down a dead-end with it. - BillCJ (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't believe that at all, so I guess we'll see what others thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I prefer player is that every biographical dab in Wikipedia outside of hockey and the recent moves in baseball and football describes the person and there is a significant benefit and ease in keeping that pattern. It is also grammatically correct. I do think that gridiron coach and gridiron executive would be acceptable if those cases ever came up.

My first reaction to gridiron player was actually the same as BillCJ's actually; that, in North America, it is treated more as a somewhat quirky nickname than a real term but I have come around that it is actually a useful world term that is really used as an umbrella term for the different codes of football like NFL, CFL, Arena, and flag football. These general terms are good and useful when speaking to a world audience and are not so foreign to others that they cannot be explained easily.

Another reason why the most general dab is preferred is the Wiki principle and semi-automatic linking that underlies it. Editors are supposed to be able to simply type along and put square brackets around John Brown and even if they forget to check if it goes to the direct person, it should go to a disambiguation page. If they are thinking while they are typing, "Well, of course there are other John Browns" and type John Brown (football player), then that should either lead to that one football player or if there is more than one, then to a disambuiguation that will lead to the correct one. It is kind of like the concentric circles of a target. If there is a single person with the name, the bull's eyes occupies the entire target, if not, each ring should get one closer to the target. In that way, I assert that (football player) is the best most general dab and agree that the next step, should a person find that page to be a dab, is to find John Brown (gridiron player) beside John Brown (footballer). DoubleBlue (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"outside of hockey and the recent moves in baseball and football," shows that when it come sot sports, WP:QUALIFIER has it dead on that in sports, it should be the sport that is the disambiguator.--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you that the editor who wrote the line from QUALIFIER that you are quoting, disagrees strongly with that interpretation. All biographical dabs should describe the person. The recent change to QUALIFIER was made, more or less, to account for baseball's aberration. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"All biographical dabs should describe the person."

My question is: why? If it works well that way, then fine. If a guy is famous for being a physicist, then his page can easily be located at "John Smith (physicist)" rather than "John Smith (physics)." But why add "player" to an athlete's disambiguation when it's unnecessary? "Baseball" or "football" gets the job done just as much as "baseball player" or "football player", if not more so considering they can be used for any person notable in the sport like coaches or executives, rather than just players.

All you keep saying is that dabs should describe the person, and you fail to provide any argument for why that method is better, or why other methods are worse. Do you just blindly go along with everything and never ask why?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I don't just go along blindly and never ask why. I guess that you don't know me at all :-) Anyway, the fact that it's been the standard and the way it's been done across Wikipedia makes it easier for editors to select the dab correctly and does not double the possible dab choice. (i.e. Is it John Brown (musician) or John Brown (music)? John Brown (politician) or John Brown (politics)? ) An additional point is that it does make sense, grammatically speaking, to read the person's name followed by a parenthetical description. DoubleBlue (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no grammar issue.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you still haven't answered the question.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Chrisjnelson has it correct. Tavix (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Framework for discussion

Since I noticed some move-warring a few days ago by some of the people involved in this discussion, I have been attempting to prevent further edit-warring until the issue is resolved. The time has come, I think, to sort out this issue once and for all. In agreement with most the people involved in this issue, the correct place to have this discussion is on this page. They have also agreed to suspend all page moves which relate to this issue, until the matter is resolved. If necessary I will take steps to enforce this.

The idea is that the discussion will be held here, but advertised in various other places. We will keep it open for perhaps a fortnight, but this can be lengthened depending on how things develop. If more input is needed, we can consider opening a request for comment on the matter.

Previous discussions

Before starting it will probably be a good idea for participants to read up on the previous discussions of this issue. (Please add to this list if you know any others.)

1. WT:NCP#John Beck (American football) vs. John Beck (football player)
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive502#User:Tavix
3. WT:NCP#Sports "revolt"
4. User talk:Tavix/Football naming conventions

Advertising this discussion

I suggest advertising this discussion in the following places. (Please add to this list any other appropriate venues and I will mark when I've posted there.)

1. WP:VPP
2. WP:NAMEPEOPLE
3. WP:CENT

Suggestions and requests

• I suggest that it makes sense that the naming policy for sports people follows as closely as possible the naming conventions for people generally. Of course there will be slightly different interpretations and practices, but unless there is good reason, WP:NCP should not contradict WP:NAME.
• Please keep all discussion civil and light-hearted. That shouldn't be a problem based on recent discussions I've seen. But also, try to avoid the battlefield mentality of us vs them. Consider all points carefully before replying.
• In my judgement there are at least two separate issues:
  1. Whether or not to use the word "player" to describe the person, or whether the name of the sport is satisfactory.
  2. The level of disambiguation required. (E.g. Canadian football, gridiron, football, ball player, sports player).

Therefore I am creating two headings below. Please try to keep your comments in the relevant section!

Certain WikiProjects insisting upon DAB by date and/or by sport

Unresolved

 – Longstanding dispute that needs to be resolved via WP:RFC.

Is it true that Association footballers are often disambiguated with birth year as recently added to WP:NCSP? This is in contradiction to the general wisdom of WP:NCP that the birth year is unlikely to be known for a reader seeking information on the person or immediately at hand for editors typing the link. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's the way its been done over at WP:FOOTY for as long as I can remember. You can go over there and talk to them if you want to change consensus or something. Tavix (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
• Alot of projects use WP:IAR when it comes to birth years in dabs. -Djsasso (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think that this is a good idea and that this guideline should reflect the recommendations of WP:NCP. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This [proposed] guideline and those of WikiProjects have to follow more overarching guidelines. If they want an exception to a general rule, they seek broad, general consensus for it (not just within their own membership) and get the general rule amended to allow their exception. The ArbCom has already made it clear that projects don't get to just make up their own rules. That also goes for disambiguating people as people not as fields of activity. The football, baseball and ice hockey projects (alone, out of all sports and non-sports projects on the entire Wikipedia) have been remarkably recalcitrant on these points, and I don't expect that to change. I strongly do suspect that the matter will have to be settled via a WP-wide RfC. WP:IAR is not to be used lightly, and few use it properly: unless one's ability to improve the encyclopedia is being thwarted by a rule, the rule should not be ignored. No evidence has ever been presented by any of these three projects (or the grand total of maybe 5 individuals from them collectively who have pushed for ignoring the naming conventions) that disambiguating people as people instead of as "soccer" or "baseball" or "hockey" itself, or using some disambiguator other than birth year except in exceedingly rare cases would somehow hinder their ability to improve the encyclopedia in any way. It's simply a preference being asserted against the full weight of the entire rest of the encyclopedia's editorship, which consistently obeys WP:NCP and uses constructions like "Jane Q. Public (chemist)" instead of "Jane Q. Public (chemistry)" and doesn't DAB by birthday. PS: Even in the very rare case that a DAB by year might be appropriate, the proposed disambiguation (at the WP:NCP link provided above) is "(born YYYY)", not what this draft guideline specifies under "Ice hockey" as of this writing (a long-winded solution with an abbreviation in it, "(ice hockey, b. YYYY)", which does not comport with WP:NCP on any level). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Parts of this proposal is a direct contridiction of WP:NC-BASE

According to this proposal, if this proposal were to pass then it would require the changing of (baseball) to (baseball player). That is a direct contridiction of WP:NC-BASE, which is an official naming convention. Tavix (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the special cases a little bit to include the WP:NC-BASE guideline. I might work on it a little more, but right now it should be all right. Tavix (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. NC-BASE is in direct contradiction of WP:NCP, a real guideline, and has not been through a full proposal process. You simply slapped a {{guideline}} on it, and no one noticed or cared, because it's not a page anyone involved in the debate knew or cared about. Just because you like to praise your own work as "official" (sorry, but there's no such thing on Wikipedia, with the three and only three exceptions of proclamations by Jimbo in his corporate capacity, directives from WP:OFFICE, and rulings of the WP:ARBCOM) doesn't mean it magically has more weight somehow. You certainly do not get to pull off an end-run around consensus and Wikipedia process by declaring your own opinion a fait accompli new "consensus". You might also want to search the ArbCom archives for that italicized phrase and see what comes down when people attempt to game the system by pulling off fait accompli actions. (That entire case is actually quite relevant, since it was about a WikiProject trying to buck WP-wide general guidelines and do whatever they wanted. They lost.) — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This page is a mess

Can I suggest that the football/american football discussion moves to a subpage, appropriately pointed from here. Can I further suggest that if you want wider participation in the discussion, rather than pointing to several archived chats elsewhere, someone neatly encapsulates the key issues to help people get up to speed quickly. Otherwise, you're doomed to meagre participation from editors not already embroiled in this. --Dweller (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be discussed here anyway, but be an RfC at WT:NCP, the talk page of the active, non-draft guideline on the topic. And it certainly shouldn't be an RfC about two completely unrelated issues, as the above attempt was. Nor should it be about the word "player" (which would only apply in the case of player articles, not coaches, announcers, etc.) The actually issue is whether WP:NCP applies generally. More specifically it is really about whether NCP's rules, such as to disambiguate people as people, or to not DAB by birth year, somehow don't apply if one or more members of a WikiProject claim(s) that the project has an internal mini-consensus to disagree with NCP on the matter. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 09:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That you do not like this page does not mean discussion surrounding improvements of it should be redirected to one that you do like. Resolute 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. I like this page a whole lot, being the creator of and largest contributor to it. That's like saying I don't like WP:MOSICON. <Fzzzt, pop, spark> Does not compute! I'm frankly really disappointed that it's not gone any further toward acceptance as a guideline in the time that I've been away from it. If it's not a {{Proposal}} again soon and put through the WP:PROPOSAL process, it might as well just be WP:MFD'd along with with WP:NC-BASE. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 03:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Pseudonyms (martial arts ring names, video-game usernames, etc.)

I think we need a policy on how to handle sports pseudonyms. I just poked my nose into a minor controversy on where the Alexander Rusev page should be, and was disappointed to find that this article didn't clear things up. Relevant policies include WP:UCRN, WP:SPNC, and WP:Precise. An archived discussion on the controversy in question reached consensus; maybe it could be a model for future policy. FourViolas (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sport or sport player?

This page is not very clear. Should a sportsperson be disambiguated simply by the sport they play or should it describe their role. The sentence Use the -er or -ist or otherwise short term describing the person – "bowler", "skier", "cyclist", "acrobat" – when it is the most commonly used in the context, otherwise use a compound ("chess player", "martial artist", etc.) suggests that the later applies, but many of the examples given use (football) and (hockey). There appears to be no standard across sport articles, with some (football and cricket) predominately adding "-er", while baseball, basketball and American football don't. AIRcorn (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Well, of course there isn't. Different sports use differing traditional nomenclature. Ravenswing 03:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes but there is a nomenclature for describing the sport (hockey/football) and a different one for describing the person playing the sport (hockey player/footballer). This is where the inconsistency arises across different sports. AIRcorn (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Indeed there is; different sports use different nomenclature. We use the terms the sports do, not some one-size-fits-all construction chosen for standardization's sake alone. Ravenswing 11:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I think we have some mis-communication here. DJSasso has provided an answer below. AIRcorn (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Theoretically it should be the name of the sport because you are supposed to use the least specific option when disambiguating. And by specifying it is a footballer specifically that is more specific than needed when football would do in most cases unless there are two people both who are involved in football. However, different sport projects have decided what works best for their sport. -DJSasso (talk) 12:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • So in the end it is up to the individual wikiprojects to decide on the best naming convention for their sport? This page may need some updating to reflect that then. By the way it was also quite hard to find this page. I only got here by reading a deletion discussion for the baseball naming conventions, which are strangely linked to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) while this is not. AIRcorn (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes generally the individual projects have come up with their own naming conventions that they find best fit their sport. This page is sort of a collection of those decisions. Whether or not that is the best way for it to have been done I have no comment. Just stating how things got where they are. -DJSasso (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Okay, I propose rewriting this page to better reflect that. It should say somewhere that both forms are acceptable. A guideline that advocates one form, but uses examples of another is going to be confusing to the general reader. AIRcorn (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've gotta be honest, I prefer disambiguating simply by the sport. An individual may be notable as both a player and a manager/administrator, so how do we decide which serves as the disambiguator: "footballer" or "football manager"? The best explanation I've heard at WT:FOOTY is that we simply decide which one the subject is more notable for. Obviously this introduces an element of subjectivity for players/managers who are borderline as to what they're most notable for. Disambiguating by the sport would therefore make disambiguation more objective and it would introduce a level of consistency across Wikipedia. I can't think of any other field outside sport that disambiguates by the person's job rather than the field they work in, i.e. a chemist would be disambiguated by "chemistry" rather than "chemist". – PeeJay 10:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation consistency on rugby players

I added a section about how to disambiguate rugby player. I see inconsistency among articles disambiguated with "(rugby)", "(rugby player)" and so forth whenever there is not one another rugby player of the same name. Jack Matthews (rugby player) is the only rugby player of the same name, and there is "player" in it rather than either "union" or no extra word at all. Seriously, how do we deal with this? --George Ho says "Happy Halloween" (BOO!) 05:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Gaelic football, hurling, and dual players

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gaelic games/bio#Article title conventions. jnestorius^(talk) 09:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Competitive gaming/eSports

Would competitive gamers fall under "notable gamester, such as a professional poker or chess player"? There is no specific mention of that here. eSport player naming conventions were discussed in an unclosed RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 117#Naming conventions for esports/ pro video gaming people and subsequently covered in a single line at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#Disambiguation, but I think they could fall under this guideline as well, perhaps primarily. 9³ (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Do we use the disambiguator (rhythmic gymnast) or (gymnast) for rhythmic gymnasts

I think WP:CONCISE would apply but I'm seeing both used with similar frequency here Category:Rhythmic gymnast stubs. This got me thinking, shouldn't we have guidelines for sports with 2 or more words? For example:

Sport	use 2-word disambiguator	use 1-word disambiguator
Beach volleyball		Use Jo Smith (volleyball)
3x3 basketball		Use Jo Smith (basketball)
Marathon swimming		Use Jo Smith (swimmer)
Synchronised swimming	Use Jo Smith (sychronised swimmer)
Greco-Roman wrestling		Use Jo Smith (wrestler)
Field hockey	use Jo Smith (field hockey)
Speed skating	use Jo Smith (speed skater)
Cross-country skiing		Jo Smith (skier)?
Freestyle skiing	Jo Smith (freestyle skier)?

It makes no sense to use Jo Smith (3x3 basketball), but Jo Smith (synchronised swimmer) is probably preferred over Jo Smith (swimmer). Such a list will obviously be very subjective, but all guidelines involve a degree of controversy. Thoughts? Timmyshin (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Racing

For someone who participates in drag races, is the dab convention "dragster driver" or "drag racer"? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Bio pages for players of Bowls

Hi there, I hope you can help. I've brought up at both WT:SPORTS and WP:RFC to no comments regarding moving articles with the suffix (bowls), such as Paul Foster (bowls) to be moved to a more suitible name, such as Paul Foster (bowls player). However, as this seems to be on a lot of player bios, I'd want a consensus that this was the correct move. This would only be the way forward for players, so say, an article that was created for Jack (bowls) (the piece of equipment) would be fine.

There's also an argument for Paul Forster (bowler), however, "bowler"s would be quite easy to mistake for skittles players, or ten pin bowlers. Do you think this is an argument worth taking a look at? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case (bowls) does appear to be the suitable name. We tend to use the name of the sport in most cases. For example (ice hockey). There are some sports where we seem to diverge from that for some reason. But per WP:CONCISE it should be the least words to reliably disambiguate. And the most concise one is usually the name of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Both "bowls" and "bowler" are one word, which is already as WP:CONCISE as possible. CONCISE is not meant to prefer a single five-letter word against a single six-letter word.
• The relevant line is this: "The disambiguation used varies between sports, but should either describe the person's role within the sport ("bowler", "cyclist", "acrobat", "chess player", "martial artist", etc.) or the sport itself ("basketball", "baseball", "tennis" etc.)."
  I'd say that "bowler" is already officially endorsed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation by position

Why not allow position for soccer/association football players? There are occasions when position is a clearer disambiguator than either nationality (when someone plays in more than one nation or has multiple citizenships) or year of birth (when players are the same generation). DrKay (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Positions are open to debate (is someone a striker or a forward), and players also play in multiple positions (Ian Marshall played up front and as a centre-back). Nationality and especially birth date are far less ambiguous. I believe there are a few examples of disambiguation by position (when players have the same birth year, or it is unknown), but it is generally a last resort. Number 57 07:51, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much what Number 57 said - is someone a full-back or a wing-back (pretty much the same position)? A centre-half or a half-back or a central defender (pretty much the same position)? What about the many, many players who play in multiple positions? YOB is always the first option (it doesn't change), then by nationality if required. GiantSnowman 12:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - there are too many variables in terms of position - players may play in many positions, and as noted above there are multiple names for the same position (especially when comparing players from different eras) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

What about using it only for goalkeepers? They almost never play in other positions (at least in football and ice hockey, I'm not sure of other sports).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Rugby league

We have editors using this page as a reason for page moves, without rugby league being detailing on the page. Do we need to write something for you, in order to avoid avoidable clerical work when page moves go against MOS.Fleets (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Have added as there was no opposition for three days.Fleets (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest changes. Please provide a link showing consensus at the WikiProject level. Alternatively, place the proposal here and invite the related projects here. I had a typo in the edit summary, but I'm surprised we would not just use "(rugby)" if there was only one person who played any type of rugby.—Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Long standing consensus that appears to go back several years with both Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Style and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Manual of style/ employing the naming convention. Per message left on talk page, the previous version, was far less wrong, and any move away from the previously held consensus could be brought up with both projects to see if there is a desire to redefine (rugby) for dual-code players and move away from that long-held consensus.Fleets (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

List of dual-code rugby internationals is the best illustration of that implementation, again more confusing or less confusing is not the point, but the long-held and wide implementation is prevalent in dual code rugby players.Fleets (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Bump.Fleets (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason that we cannot simply have "rugby" as the disambiguation word when there is only one player (from both codes) with that name. This is particularly true in countries where "rugby" almost universally means "rugby union" or "rugby league" (in the case of New Zealand English for example, rugby means rugby union almost exclusively). There is no reason for more disambiguation than necessary. But if in doubt of course, then "rugby union" or "rugby league" should be used, and care should be taken, but using "rugby" alone should not be verboten encyclopaedia wide. -- Shudde^talk 20:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason that we cannot simply have "rugby" as the disambiguation word Referring to e.g. Jack Wighton as "rugby" is factually incorrect as he plays league, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer), in regards to players of Gaelic football

I've been noticing that there are quite a few articles for sports players that play Gaelic football that use the disambiguator "(Gaelic footballer)" instead of "(footballer)". (See here for some examples; most of the examples do not have an equivalent "NAME (footballer)" article in existence.) In the present state of the section at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer), considering that the word "Gaelic" is currently nowhere on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), the current wording of this guideline states that "footballer" should be used by default.

...Does this need to be changed to state that article titles for players of Gaelic football should use the "(Gaelic footballer)" disambiguator instead of "(footballer)", or should those titles use "(footballer)" and add that "(footballer)" also applies to players of Gaelic football if "(footballer)" is not ambiguous otherwise? (Original timestamp on next line.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Original timestamp.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Jnestorius: Pinging you since it seems you may have interest in this per one of the above sections currently on this page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Surely the only fair solution is to specifically identify the sport in every case, i.e. Gaelic footballer when appropriate, Association footballer (or soccer player in places like the USA), Australian rules footballer... HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sport or occupation?

Why is it that some sports use the name of the sport as a disambiguator (e.g. Anthony Parker (American football)) and others use the adjective associated with that sport (e.g. Daniel James (footballer))? Wouldn't it make more sense for all of them to use the name of the sport? WP:NCDAB specifically says "choose whichever is simpler. For example, use "(mythology)" rather than "(mythological figure)". Does this apply to sports players or not? Are we sticking to the conventions that are currently in place only because it would be too much effort to change now? – PeeJay 16:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's probably WP:ENGVAR related. Americans generally say "player" instead of appending -er, but adding "player" just makes the title bulkier, unless it's necessary to disambiguate from another person who is a coach or executive.—Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but wouldn't it be nice to have some consistency? Also, what about for people associated with association football who are well known for both playing and coaching? It seems like we disambiguate as "footballer" regardless. – PeeJay 18:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

While you might want a more general convention, I think the status quo is consistent with ENGVAR and is being applied consistently as written across articles.—Bagumba (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thats's probably right. On a related note, I've never heard of someone who plays American football referred to as a "footballer", but rather as a "football player". This is obviously different than players of football/soccer and other foot sports who are definitely called "footballer"s. Steel1943 (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sport named for a country

There is a contradiction regarding the handling of sports named after a country e.g. American football, Canadian football. While Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#The "sport named for a country" problem says It is not desirable to use disambiguators like "(Canadian football player)" for players of Canadian football, for example. It is unclear if the adjective ("Canadian") refers to the game or to the nationality of the player, later at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Gridiron football it says If he played only one code of gridiron football, such as American football or Canadian football, use the name of that code. Example: Anthony Parker (American football) The defacto practice is to use "American football" as a disambiguator regardless of the player nationality. Seem that "The 'sport named for a country' problem" section, if it is still relevant and is to remain, should at least remove the Canadian football example.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The guideline for Australian rules football directly contradicts this as well. Opera hat (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. "American football" refers unambiguously to the sport; if you wanted to refer to nationality you'd have to do something like "Anthony Parker (American, football)" (but we don't do that). However, "American football player" is genuinely ambiguous. All it's saying is that you shouldn't use the "(nationality) (sport) player" construction. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Does WP:ENGVAR suffice for disambiguating footballers from soccer players?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The question is quite simple:

1. Suppose there are two people called "John Smith" who are notable for playing the sport known officially as Association football. One of them is an American soccer player and the other is a British footballer. Is "John Smith (soccer)" and "John Smith (footballer)" adequate parenthetical disambiguation, or do more disambiguators such as nationality or year of birth need to be used?
2. Now suppose there are multiple British footballers called "John Smith" who are already disambiguated by their year of birth, but still only one American soccer player. What is the correct parenthetical disambiguation for the American?

Reading the current guideline does not make it clear whether football and soccer are intended to be treated as different sports or the same sport for the purposes of disambiguation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• For mine, the correct disambiguation should be "John Smith (soccer, born 1987)" and "John Smith (footballer, born 1988)". A reader searching for one or the other will not be aided if the only distinction is that one is described as "soccer" and one as "footballer" (they may not know WP naming conventions; they may not know the nationality of John Smith; they may see only one or the other in their search and assume that that is the John Smith they are searching for). So I think the mere fact that the namespaces are available without need for further disambiguation should not mean that further disambiguation should not be included. Macosal (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
• Nationality Add the nationality to the disambiguator. i.e. American soccer and British footballer, per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Association_football_(soccer) 2a: If the footballers have different nationalities, use their nationality in the disambiguation.—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Just to clarify: you are OK with mixed disambiguation in the second case, i.e. British footballers disambiguated by "footballer born xxxx" and the lone American soccer player as "American soccer player"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

  Yes. I think the assumption would be that "American" is distinguishing enough, so a year is not needed, unlike the two footballers who are both British.—Bagumba (talk) 05:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - for what it's worth, I think using 'footballer' and 'soccer' is absolutely sufficient, given that is how we have done to for years and I am unaware of any problems - if it ain't broke don't fix it. Failing that, add the year of birth as suggested by Macosal, as is standard for cases where there are multiple footballers by the same name. We should avoid using the nationality as nationality in this sport is incredibly fluid and ambiguous. FWIW @Bagumba: 'British footballer' should NEVER be used, there's really no such thing, it should be broken down into English/Scottish etc. GiantSnowman 16:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  We should avoid using the nationality as nationality in this sport is incredibly fluid and ambiguous: I'm not a soccer contributor, but I'd suggest rewording Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Association_football_(soccer) 2a if it doesn't reflect common practice.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

  I think this hypothetical case is worth considering: Suppose there was an American called "Wayne Rooney" who managed to get into MLS. Per WP:NFOOTY, he deserves an article. Let's say there are no other notable Wayne Rooneys besides him and the English footballer. Is Wayne Rooney (soccer) really the way to go? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Or consider real life examples I saw the other day at Michael_Robinson#Association_football_(soccer). —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  More at Ben_Johnson#Other_codes_of_football.—Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Nationality: I think "soccer" or "footballer" is sufficient to disambiguate but I would prefer instead saying John Smith (American) vs. John Smith (British), and only listing profession if there's, say, an American actor also named John Smith. (Oh, that being said: it should either be John Smith (soccer) vs. John Smith (football), or John Smith (soccer player) vs. John Smith (footballer). However we phrase it should definitely be parallel.) Loki (talk) 03:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  @LokiTheLiar: People are generally disambiguated by their field, not nationality only. See WP:NCPDAB for the general guideline on naming people.—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  American sportspeople typically have the "player" dropped for brevity, whereas British subjects have the luxury of using the "-er" term, e.g. footballer.—Bagumba (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Actually, I don't think it's an American/British thing; it's whether a one-word term for a player of the sport exists. If it does (e.g. golfer), we use it; otherwise we disambiguate by the name of the sport alone. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

  Whatever the reason, Americans do not have an "-er" version for its three biggest sports (football, basketball, baseball).—Bagumba (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment So the way I see it, it should be based on these circumstances:

Disambiguate key

1. If there are two association football players with the same name and both have nationalities with different ENGVAR variants (Canada, USA, Australia = soccer; everything else = footballer): John Smith (footballer) John Smith (soccer) 2. If there are two (or more) association football players with the same name and ENGVAR variant, but different nationalities: John Smith (English footballer) John Smith (Scottish footballer) John Smith (Welsh footballer) or John Smith (American soccer) John Smith (Canadian soccer) John Smith (Australian soccer) 3. If there are two (or more) association football players with the exact same name and nationalities, but different births (only disambiguate as far as necessary; year, then month, then day): John Smith (footballer, born 1984) John Smith (footballer, born 2000) or John Smith (soccer, born 1984) John Smith (soccer, born 2000) 4. If there are more than two association football players with the same name, but varying nationalities and ENGVAR variants: 4a. John Smith (footballer, born 1983) - English John Smith (footballer, born 1989) - English John Smith (soccer) - American or John Smith (footballer) - English John Smith (soccer, born 1983) - American John Smith (soccer, born 1989) - American 4b. John Smith (Colombian footballer) John Smith (Venezuelan footballer) John Smith (soccer) - Canadian or John Smith (footballer) - Spanish John Smith (American soccer) John Smith (Canadian soccer) 4c. John Smith (Brazilian footballer) John Smith (Turkish footballer) John Smith (American soccer) John Smith (Canadian soccer) 4d. John Smith (footballer, born 1995) - Portuguese John Smith (footballer, born 1996) - Portuguese John Smith (footballer, born 2000) - Spanish John Smith (soccer) - American or John Smith (footballer) - Italian John Smith (soccer, born May 2003) - American John Smith (soccer, born July 2003) - Canadian John Smith (soccer, born 2005) - American 4e. John Smith (footballer, born 1910) - English John Smith (footballer, born 1945) - English John Smith (soccer, born 1987) - American John Smith (soccer, born 1989) - American and John Smith (footballer, born 1910) - English John Smith (footballer, born 1945) - English John Smith (footballer, born 1960) - Scottish John Smith (soccer, born 1987) - American John Smith (soccer, born 1988) - Canadian John Smith (soccer, born 1989) - American 5. Do not disambiguate as "soccer player", only "soccer": John Smith (soccer) Y John Smith (soccer player) N John Smith (American soccer) Y John Smith (American soccer player) N 6. Most importantly of all, disambiguate based on either birth OR nationality, not both: John Smith (English footballer) Y John Smith (footballer, born 1900) Y John Smith (English footballer, born 1900) N

Yes I understand that this may look overly complicated, but it's not broken, makes a lot of sense, and we've been doing it this way for a very long time. I feel like the idea that "footballer" and "soccer" are the exact same thing seems like a European issue since the two words are considered to be almost interchangeable, compared to the United States where you're way less likely to hear the words "footballer" in someone's vocabulary unless they're serious footballing fanatics. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - for those advocating nationality in these situations, what about cases like Ricky Shakes? Born and raised in England, but had short international careers for both Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana. How would you disambiguate him by nationality? GiantSnowman 07:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  In those cases, nationality is probably not defining or too long winded, so move on to the next option.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'd say "John Smith (soccer)" and "John Smith (footballer)" is not adequate disambiguation. Plenty of people read articles about sportspeople from other countries, this style of disambiguation can lead to confusion or uncertainty. Include the nationality, or in cases where nationality is ambiguous or unclear, include year of birth or other disambiguators. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  When has it actually ever? You are underestimating our readers. This has been standard disambiguation for years and it works. GiantSnowman 07:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

• "(soccer)"" and "(footballer)" not adequate I don't know whether we should use nationality or year of birth for disambiguation but I think "(soccer)"" and "(footballer)" do not suffice. As Macosal mentioned the average reader will not be aware of our naming conventions. Robby.is.on (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• ENGVAR is not sufficiently disambiguating because "soccer" is universally understood to mean association football and is used outside of the Americas. In the first instance, nationality should be used when further disambiguation is necessary because that is the information most likely to be known to the reader already. If that is unclear or ambiguous, then use or add the other options. DrKay (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Indeed, ENGVAR would permit either "soccer" or "footballer" for any player not connected with an English-speaking country. Perhaps if it were made clear that "soccer" should be used for those English-speaking countries where "soccer" is the name of the sport and "football" is the common name of a different sport, and by consensus, players from all other countries should use "footballer" (if such a consensus were reached)? Following on from that, seems odd that South Africa isn't listed as a "soccer" country in the naming convention section 1, but South African people who play it are categorised as South African soccer players and not footballers.
• Personally, I have no problem with the current wording of section 2, and in particular the "use the [more] conclusive" of nationality and birth year. In general, the reader might well be more likely to know a player's approximate nationality (e.g. English/Welsh/variants of Irish, or Portuguese/Brazilian/ex-Portuguese colonies) than exact year of birth, but they might well be far less likely to know an exact nationality than an approx birth year as evidenced by activity in the 1910s as against the 1980s. Trouble is, following that wording allows for editorial judgment, which isn't universally popular.
• I really don't get KingSkyLord's antipathy to using both nationality and birth year: it's the only rational way of dabbing a John Smith (English footballer, born 1895) from a John Smith (Scottish footballer, born 1895) when other English and Scottish John Smiths exist and we don't have full birth dates (as is usually the case for players born that long ago). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Just to reiterate my position, I believe that it is inadequate, because American soccer players are footballers and British footballers are soccer players, even if that's not the term they are best known by. I agree with Struway2 that "footballer" should be used for countries with no clear preference, but that's kind of orthogonal to my original question, which assumes the existence of "soccer" and "football" countries and asks what to do with them rather than attempting to classify them. To GiantSnowman's comment "This has been standard disambiguation for years and it works": 1) no evidence has been presented that this is actually true; 2) even if it accurately describes current practice, that does not mean that the situation cannot be improved. I am neutral on the question of whether to mix disambiguation (nationality/birth year) for footballers and soccer players, but definitely think that no one should be disambiguated as solely "footballer" or "soccer player" when there exist other association football players from any country. However, I am most interested in getting a WP:CONSISTENT disambiguation scheme and will support any outcome which results in a consensus over the current uncertainty. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.