Shortcut

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Bump.Fleets (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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. -- Shuddetalk 20:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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

There's a consensus here that national variations of English alone are not sufficient to disambiguate these athletes, and there is also a rough consensus to include nationality as a disambiguator in these cases. There is currently not a consensus on whether to mix birth years and nationalities. For those wanting a consistent way forward, the consensus would be to use nationality combined with either footballer or soccer player. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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) checkY
John Smith (soccer player) ☒N
John Smith (American soccer) checkY
John Smith (American soccer player) ☒N

6. Most importantly of all, disambiguate based on either birth OR nationality, not both:

John Smith (English footballer) checkY
John Smith (footballer, born 1900) checkY
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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.
Categories