Jump to content

Talk:Mike Peluso (ice hockey, born 1965)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mike David Peluso)

Removed reference to rumor

[edit]

I deleted a section under "Other" which referred to a possible romantic link with a celebrity in order to comply with the policy regarding biographies of living persons. The cited source (snopes.com) listed the status of the rumor as "undetermined". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wperdue (talk • contribs) 06:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again do to conflict with wikipedia official policy (posted below)

[edit]

Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Yes, the "rumor" was sourced. That does not, however, mean the source meets the standards put forth under the policies laid out in WP:BLP

The source even states that the status of the rumor was "undetermined". Therefore, it is not a verifiable fact. There is a source that the rumor exists, not that it was true or untrue. Wperdue (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Requested 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. If anything comes of the RfC(s) then the title can be changed in future, but at the moment the consensus is to follow the standard practice for ice hockey players. Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Mike David Peluso → Mike Peluso (ice hockey b. 1965) – Move back over the existing redirect. The guideline for diambiguating hockey players used to recommend using a middle name rather than year of birth. This was recently changed and middle names are only considered a good option if that middle name is reasonably well known and used reasonably frequently in sources. I think this is a case where close to 0% of hockey fans know that Peluso's middle name was David and Google finds only one occurrence of "Mike David Peluso" once you remove the Wikipedia mirrors and derivatives. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, moving but why not to Mike Peluso (ice hockey, born 1965).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that (ice hockey b. xxxx) was the standard format. This is hard to quantify but at least anecdotally (ice hockey, born xxxx) appears to be rare and Alain Cote (ice hockey, born 1957), Harry Watson (ice hockey born 1923), Billy Taylor (ice hockey born 1919) among many others are all redirects. For more anecdotal evidence see these two searches [1] [2]. That being said, I don't really care and if there's good evidence that (occupation, born xxxx) is the standard outside of the ice hockey project, I'd certainly consider moving every ice hockey article to that format. Pichpich (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen David Baker (poker player, born 1972)/David Baker (poker player, born 1986), Tony Mitchell (basketball, born 1989)/Tony Mitchell (basketball, born 1992), but I have also seen John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1831)/John Smith (Medal of Honor, b. 1826). At David Jones see Dave Jones (footballer born 1932), Dave Jones (footballer born 1956), David Jones (footballer born 1914), David Jones (footballer born 1940), David Jones (footballer born 1955), David Jones (footballer born 1964), David Jones (footballer born 1984). I.e., comma v. no comma, born v. b. and player v. no player. I have looked at WP:DAB and WP:NATURAL. I am not sure. I would ask at WP:WPDAB.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To put both "ice hockey" and the year of birth in the title is WP:OVERPRECISION. The other Mike Peluso is also a hockey player, so the "ice hockey" disambiguator doesn't even disambiguate. This Mike Peluso got 3,249 views in the last 90 days. The one born in 1974 got 1,037. Let's make this subject primary and put him at just plain Mike Peluso. Kauffner (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I'm a bit surprised that the other Mike Peluso is getting that many hits. But if it's really 3-to-1 (and not 20-to-1 as I would have expected) then I'm not ready to say that the present Mike Peluso is a clear primary subject. Pichpich (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps those readers are misled because this article is "Mike David Peluso", and other one is "Mike Peluso", although there is no basis to name them differently. If an article is getting more than 50 percent of the relevant traffic, it should be primary. Making this article primary would mean that 75 percent of readers would get to where they wanted to go without any runaround. The other 25 percent could use the hat note. A disambiguation page with only two options creates an extra step for everybody. See WP:TWODABS. Kauffner (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are very generous with primary topic. Most people I see don't usually consider something a primary topic till it is well above 90% of the hits. But that being said this could be a two dab situation. But the articles are already dabbed and there is no completely clear primary in my opinion then its probably best to leave them both dab'd. -DJSasso (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be ridiculous. It is common to have subject area and a second dab term such as birthdate when there are two from the same subject area. No one is asking for something ridiculous like height or weight. We don't need any strawmen here. -DJSasso (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kauffner, please. Nobody's suggesting this and unless you deeply believe that you're talking with complete idiots, you also know we'd never suggest that. We have a reasonable disagreement about the notion of primary topic. I believe equating primary topic with 50.00001% of traffic isn't reasonable and in fact it's not the definition provided in the guideline unless you think highly likely is a synonym for "> 50%". I think it's highly likely that you don't. Pichpich (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC explains that "highly likely" implies "more likely than all the other topics combined," which sounds to me like 50 percent of traffic. The purpose of a title is to tell readers the name of the subject, how it is referred to in real-world published English. So sport, birth year are other disambiguators are distracting and extraneous. As editors, we're hip the skip. We know how Wiki uses parentheticals and they look normal to us. But they are an artifact of our software, not the general practice among reference works. Kauffner (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you missed the logical connective in that sentence: "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined" (my emphasis). Pichpich (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me back up and explain certain basic aspects of this issue. The general idea is the we should be trying to make Wikipedia look as much like a professionally produced reference work as possible. Published reference works, including those online, do not use disambiguators. The reason Wikipedia uses them is because there is an unfortunate glitch in our software that prevents us from having more than one article of the same title. The logical conclusion is that we should be minimizing our use of disambiguators, not using double disambigution where there is no need to have even one disambiguator. Kauffner (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a glitch, it's a design choice which has its pros and cons. If it were a glitch, you would have submitted a bugzilla report ages ago. Disambiguation should be avoided but not at all costs. Disambiguation can be very helpful in reducing the number of links that are pointing to the wrong page (even more so now with the help of DPL bot) and it makes it easier to browse categories. But of course you know that, just like Djsasso and I know about Wikipedia:Disambiguation. We just disagree about this particular case. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger - suspect you will need a RfC and a bot to standardize that. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because there was is a standardized naming convention for hockey players. To have one article different when every other article is done the other way would be odd. Yes I realize you have a number of other formats shown above. But those are all different sports and likely all have their own naming conventions. If you want to see the whole wiki uniform you would need an RFC. And I highly doubt one would end up being very productive. (edit: And seeing your link down below now that it is true. bickering already started on simply having the RFC in that location) -DJSasso (talk) 13:41, 6 March 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Peluso (ice hockey, born 1965). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Peluso_(ice_hockey,_born_1965)&oldid=1236039019"