Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DGG (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 28 December 2009 (→Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (baseball players)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (baseball players)

Pointless fork of Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people). All this guideline does is bulk out the kudzu of process by trying to describe all the ways in which one might disambiguate two baseball players with similar names. How often do you think we're going to find two players with the same name who are both pitchers but one is left handed and the other right handed? It's a pointless attempt to legislate clue based on hypothetical examples which may never come up. Guy (Help!) 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Could redirect to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople), could delete both and push the content into a guideline page at WP:Baseball. Either way, this page is redundant. Resolute 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, unless you are intending to delete the sportpeople page as well might as well just redirect it to that page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral: Well a quick search shows how often this level of disambiguation is needed for the tens of thousands of baseball players considered notable. The extreme case is Bob Miller (1949–1958 pitcher) vs. Bob Miller (1953–1962 pitcher) vs. Bob Miller (1957–1974 pitcher) - two were right-handed, two pitched in the 1950s, two pitched in both leagues, all three pitched in the National League at one point or another, etc... That said, I'm fine with just using common sense and not having a guideline as such. Wknight94 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the dates work well enough there. Guy (Help!) 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Baseball players with the same name are common enough, and it's better to have a straightforward set of rules then proceeding randomly. Absent any demonstrated problems, these would make sense and resolve the great majority of cases. Team references certainly don't work; the two later Bob Millers were both on the Mets for the same season. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Hullaballoo. I wouldn't consider it rare that baseball players would have the same name, same position, same time period. Having a project specific disamb. string to differentiate between two players is helpful not only to the editors, but to the readers. Removing the redundancy is appropriate, but keep the string. It was developed in reaction to, not anticipation of, problems associated with players with the same name. Another example I just quickly found, John Fitzgerald (Boston Reds pitcher), John Fitzgerald (1950s pitcher), and John Fitzgerald (Rochester Broncos pitcher). Don't even get me started on Bill Smith.Neonblak - 18:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you please explain why it is helpful to have a naming convention specific to baseball players? Why can't we cover this in Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people) or Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople)? JBsupreme (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and delete (if allowable under our CC-by-SA and GFDL licensing schema). It is utterly ridiculous to have a naming convention specific to baseball players, what makes them so special beyond any other notable sports person? Why should this be handled any differently? JBsupreme (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Utterly ridiculous" might be overstating. It was intended to be a helpful guide for how to disambiguate baseball players consistently - by position first, then by right-handed/left-handed, etc. Just baseball-specific attributes that would form some helpful consistency to baseball readers. But someone is intent on turning the helpful guidelines into weapons to enforce a rigid consistency at all costs. Truly the original intent was not ridiculous. Wknight94 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with sportspoeple per JBSupreme. This is really the same basic idea as the other sports on that page, no need to have a seperate one. Triplestop x3 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This has apparently been brought here to resolve a controversy over what it should contain--during the course of an rfc on the subject. It would be better to settle the issue at the rfc. I see this as an attempt to short-circuit discussion. (as for the merits of the different proposals, I havent the least idea or interest) DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)