Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 05:22, 27 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (4x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Keep, with no prejudice against continuing discussions elsewhere of possible non-deletion actions, such as a merge, redirect, or demotion. RL0919 (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

• I can appreciate that the original intent was to be helpful... I just believe that the disambiguation guidelines should be generalized and able to apply to all sports figures, baseball players included. JBsupreme (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I could look it up easily enough if I cared to, but I think this page predates the (sportspeople) page. The issue isn't that baseball is special, but rather that this page was never properly folded into the new page that had a broader scope. Resolute 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The disambiguation guidelines had to be rather specific due to a) the huge number of articles that fall within the article's domain, b) the rather rapid population grown of articles and c) the maddeningly-overlapping nature of baseball careers. Look at the Bill Smiths and Bob Millers of the baseball world, for example. Was the level of detail ridiculous? Yes. I know, because just as I thought I had wrapped things up, another editor would throw another wrinkle at me. But I wanted to create something that would be comprehensive and lasting. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:04, 31 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)
• Speedy keep I take no stance on the arguments presented, but this meets criterion #4 for speedily keeping as the page in question is a Misplaced Pages guideline. XfD is explicitly not for discussion of revoking policies and guidelines. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Your speedy keep !vote is invalid. This was never a guideline. This was certainly never a policy. It is an essay or a proposed guideline at best. JBsupreme (talk) 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• What evidence do you have that this is not a guideline? I see no indication that it isn't a guideline, only that it is recently disputed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Was never proposed, just written and declared a guideline by its major authors. By such standards, I could create a fork of WP:MOS that, for example, did everything the American way, and then slap a {{Guideline}} on it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ  Contribs. 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an inaccurate comparison. A bit of digging shows that there was extensive discussion before the guideline was tagged with {{proposed}}, was uncontested on the talk page, and was promoted to guideline status by an administrator about a month later. Was WP:PROPOSAL followed? No. But should a guideline that has been tagged and treated as such for almost two years be eligible for a speedy keep at MfD? Absolutely. I've raised this issue at AN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Speedy keep per the very clear standard that policies and conventions etc. can be revoked only through dedicated discussion, and not deletion debate. JBsupreme says above that this "was never a guideline" – he is simply incorrect: it has been regular practice since at least 2005. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  I've just noticed that JBsupreme might have meant that the basketball-page wasn't a guideline; if so, it was only un-tagged earlier today, having been upgraded a good while ago by a respected editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) (which already summarizes it anyway). Speedy #4 doesn't apply: The page in question is not a guideline, it's a redundant draft guideline that was never proposed per Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines#Proposals. And it is a POV fork from the merge-to page, itself a proposal (though not currently tagged as one, for some reason) and from Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (people), the current actual guideline. User:DGG is right to be skeptical, but in this case I think it is is okay, because the wording in question is already part of the sportspeople page. This would consolidate it in one place instead of two, and should have no effect on the RFC at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (people). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(ل)ˀ  Contribs. 00:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep for the reasons outlined above. That being said, I do think that redirecting this to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople) is appropriate, but that's an issue we can discuss on the talk page.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Merge or delete as argued here; do not keep and retain. I don't think much will be left to move, since the list of disambiguators is already at Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (sportspeople), but that's a normal editing decision. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy keep according to speedy criterion #4, per A Stop at Willoughby and TreasuryTag. BRMo (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Appears to be a good faith wikiedpia-policy-directed page. We don't delete such things. It can be converted to a redirect, an essay, {{failed}} or whatever, but not deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As the principal author of this document, I feel that an explanation of the background behind it is needed. Firstly, this page was born out of necessity while doing my work with WP:WPBB. All of the disambiguation criteria were put into place in response to actual problems we encountered while trying to standardize article titles. There were dozens of (possibly as many as a hundred, or more) duplicate articles caused by the lack of consistency with article naming. Some sort of standardization was needed. And while we may not have followed WP:POLICY to the letter, notices were posted at WP:VPP, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography, Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions, and Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming to try to involve as many people as possible in achieving consensus. All of this being said, this document has been extremely useful within WP:WPBB to internally coordinate our efforts. Thusly, I would opt to keep is as is. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• So what is it about baseball players that makes them harder to disambiguate than sportspeople generally or people overall? Frankly I'm not seeing it. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think he is alluding to WP:NOTPAPER, in that it doesn't hurt and could help the wiki to have specific guidelines for an area so that when issues do come up there is somewhere to look to see what has been done in the past. That being said since the list is also listed at the (sports people) page there is no need to have it listed twice. -DJSasso (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep After reading all the above, I do not note a single WP rule or policy which would dictate the deletion of this. SmokeyJoe has a good handle on this. Collect (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Rename and demote to essay status. Too useful to delete but too specific to rename a guideline. --Thinboy00 @086, i.e. 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment to those saying "speedy keep": WP:IAR applies here; it is absurd to have one set of naming conventions for baseball players and another for sportspeople; we've already got half of a discussion here, there's no reason (well, no good reason) to close it down, disrupting discussion in the process, only to immediately reopen on the talk page. --Thinboy00 @089, i.e. 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. Note ethat this also means redirecting it to the sportspeople list, where the info's currently at, is acceptable. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.