Jump to content

Talk:Dani Sánchez

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Name spelling

[edit]
Resolved
 – Now known for certain.

It strikes me as quite possible that this article should really be Daniel Sánchez (billiards player), since I see Sanchez with the diacritic fairly often. Anyone got any certain sources? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is Sánchez, according to his own official web site. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feats

[edit]
Resolved
 – Accidentally deleted material now restored.

I wonder why the high run and game average were removed from the article? 124.106.203.252 10:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a cut-paste accident on my part. I restored (and improved) the missing content. Thanks for flagging the error! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved (blocking redirect speedily deleted per WP:CSD G6 and G7). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sánchez (billiards player) → Dani Sánchez — Relisted. Could someone answer Anthony Appleyard's question? Ucucha 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's no indication that any of the others are known as "Dani". Since the page currently redirects to the longer title, I don't see any reason not to move it, with a hatnote linking to the dab page in case there is any confusion. older ≠ wiser 19:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: The redir to be replaced is to this article, and I'm pretty sure; this could have just as well been done with {{db-move}}. If people are going to raise unusual objections like this, I'm going to start making a lot more use of that template... I actually could have done it with {{db-author}} for that matter. Routine moves should not take weeks. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 07:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied it. If someone wants to raise a discussion about whether there's some other Dani Sánchez notable enough that "Dani Sánchez" should be disambiguated, or challenge the fact that this subject is in fact best known as "Dani Sánchez" not "Daniel Sánchez", either of those would be completely different discussions than whether to get rid of a stuck, one-major-editor redirect for a routine move. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Sánchez (billiards player) → Dani Sánchez — Relisting again after out-of-process close by nominator. Ucucha 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It wasn't "out of process", as speedy deletion is a normal deletion process and one that often pre-empts longer-winded XfD processes, even after they've started. I resent the bad faith implication. This redirect deletion clearly qualified under G7 and arguably under G6; it simply became moot for WP:RM purposes. If you want to consider it out of RM process, okay, but there's nothing wrong with something no longer within RM scope to be out of RM process, and RM does not own all possible renaming activity. Re-opening this under RM looks like process wonking, since no objection has been raised to the move as actually proposed; only a question (not objection) that is not actually relevant to the proposed move has been raised, because the asker of the question appears to have misunderstood the proposal and thinks it's for a move to Daniel Sánchez, which it clearly isn't. Whether this D. Sánchez could be considered the primary topic for the name "Daniel Sánchez" (currently a {{hndis}} page as it should be) is of zero relevance to this move (and the answer to the question is "no"). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You find it irrelevant. I find it strange that you decide that you feel you can close an RM you yourself initiated and move a page while the request is ongoing. Ucucha 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, on a more substantive point, I think Anthony Appleyard was implying that other people called Daniel Sánchez may also be called Dani Sánchez, so that this one would not be the primary topic. Whether that is true, I don't know. Ucucha 20:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it strange that you decide that WP:RM's process is so important that it trumps all other process. I could have and should have dealt with this via {{db-move}} or {{db-author}} to begin with. I'm not certain why you're making my undoing my own error difficult. I'm sorry I wasted RM's time. If someone wastes CfD's or TfD's time, by proposing for processful deletion something that can be speedied, everyone says "speedy it", and it gets speedied and people don't come along later and make a reversion fuss about it. I haven't seen any evidence until now that RM worked radically different from other XfD and XfD-ish processes. If you really, really want this RM to sit here for another week, fine. I don't see the point. The article subject is most known by the name I moved this to and you just reverted, and there is no evidence that any other notable Daniel Sanchez is known by that shorter name, much less predominantly known by it, so there's nothing to have an RM debate about. And there's a DAB hatnote anyway, so it really doesn't matter much. It was uncontroversial the whole time (a question, whether relevant or not, isn't an objection, even if you chose to extrapolate based on your interpretation of the possible intent of the question). You can undo your un-move or we can sit here for days and watch the RM close in favor of the move anyway, I really don't care. I categorically deny, however, any wrongdoing, other than I should have thought to use db-move in the first place as far more efficient and less processy. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would compare what you did rather to emptying a category while a CFD is ongoing. My main procedural objection is you self-closing the debate: by starting an RM, you asked for other editors' input, and another editor posed a question that could have been an argument against the move. It is just not up to you to decide that you can close it then, for the same reason I don't close RMs I have started or participated in.
  • And on the substantive side of the issue: From this, it appears that "Dani Sánchez" actually mainly refers to some footballer, not to this billiards player. Ucucha 21:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emptying a cat and closing the CfD because speedy applied and the CfD shouldn't've been filed in the first place wouldn't be out-of-process (it's quite common, actually). I repeat that a question isn't an objection. I see your side of it, and respectfully disagree, and don't want to argue about it any more. The only reason I cared was that there seemed to be an implication of impropriety on my part, but I've made my position on the matter clear, your's is also clear, ergo no big deal.
  • The footballer: Questionably notable, as even his own Partick Thistle F.C. team article doesn't mention him at all. The only other common but partial GHit is to Dani Sánchez Llibre, president of the RCD Espanyol football club, who (despite the practice actually being pretty common in Spanish-speaking countries) is not referred to as "Sánchez" but as "Sánchez Llibre" (see, e.g., image caption here). I would have no objection to Dani Sánchez and Dani Sanchez being DAB pages (or rather redirs to the Daniel Sánchez DAB page) and this article being at Dani Sánchez (billiards player) if the time comes to pass that Dani Sanchez (Spanish footballer) exists (and note spelling - there are no sources so far for that one using the diacritic nor for his name being Daniel, rather than just Dani, or Danito or whatever). I'm looking but I don't see any evidence of an article for this footballer anywhere on the system. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the billiards player's own homepage (see article; link has been fixed) uses "Dani Sánchez" and no other variant. This article's attempt to call him something else, without reliable sources and against his own published preferences, is a WP:BLP violation, and so under a third criterion qualifies for speedy deletion of the blocking redirect and an immediate rename. >;-) It is also presumptively original research. Heh. Just being a smartaleck. There really are (uncited here, but easily findable) reliable sources for his name actually being Daniel in long form. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's focus on the substance now. I agree that we should probably use "Dani", not "Daniel", for this article, but I think it may be preferable to have a single dab page for everyone named Dani(el) Sanchez or something like that, with all variants redirecting to that dab page. There are quite some people who are named like this, and a large fraction of the people who search for "Dani Sanchez" probably mean someone else than our billiards player. That would suggest moving to "Dani Sánchez (billiards player)". Ucucha 20:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can live with that, if the unDAB'd names all redir to one DAB page. I don't see it as necessary, since we have no evidence of any other notable Dani S. to deal with, only a maybe-notable-maybe-not pro-am footballer (if a footy player has no article here they probably aren't notable, because the football/soccer project is extremely active). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 02:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's keep it at that. Ucucha 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently Dani Sanchez redirects to Daniel Sánchez (billiards player). That seems adequate. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dani_Sánchez&oldid=1206915925"