Jump to content

Talk:Tom Wright (1930s rugby league)

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

Requested move 13 January 2018

[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.

Moved as proposed. bd2412 T 20:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wright (rugby) → Tom Wright (rugby league) – (rugby) is the accepted MOS for if a rugby football player has played both codes at the professional level, or at the top level of the time. This guy does not appear to have done that and has been moved incorrectly Fleets (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NCSP doesn't say to move it from the standard to a shorter version either and your link to concise does not support your position, if not the polar opposite.Fleets (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NCSP doesn't say to move it from the standard to a shorter version either and your link to concise does not support your position … I'm aware. I merely pointed out that neither does it say the reverse. … and your link to concise does not support your position, if not the polar opposite. How might it indicate the polar opposite? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of conciseness is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the subject area. The existing standard already does this. To move to the disambiguation for someone who had not played both codes would be inaccurate and confusing. That answer is also sufficient for your reverse statement.Fleets (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis are you arguing that the word rugby is "[in]sufficient information to identify the topic"? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above. I'm not sure I need to say any more, or could possibly say anything more definitive, but I will try to help you; it is wrong per MOS because it goes against the existing standard. He has not played rugby union and therefor a move to (rugby) would indicate to a reader that they had played a sport that he had not played.Fleets (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite sure you don't say bicycle when you are attempting to describe a motorbike, or at least I hope not.Fleets (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above. Where above does it specifically provide a rationale as to why the word rugby would be "[in]sufficient information to identify the topic"?
… it is wrong per MOS because it goes against the existing standard. Where is that standard provided in the MOS?
He has not played rugby union and therefor a move to (rugby) would indicate to a reader that they had played a sport that he had not played. How would it indicate that? The parenthetical priest wouldn't lead me to assume that the subject could not merely be a Roman Catholic priest but rather must have been both an Anglican and a Roman Catholic priest at various times (which, as an aside, is surprisingly common).
I'm quite sure you don't say bicycle when you are attempting to describe a motorbike, or at least I hope not. You are correct; I do not. As our article on bicycles indicates, bicycles are human-powered vehicles. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Fleets as they seem to have missed this. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was rhetorical, and given that you didn't get the hint, a similar point was raised by JMO with hockey.Fleets (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is rhetorical? I can't tell which of the three questions you are attempting to answer. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The definition provided by the article rugby football begs to differ. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of that article destroys your position on concise. You have introduced confusion where there was none, and no need for any at all. He didn't play rugby union, he played rugby league, the previous name of the article.Fleets (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confusing the words concise and precise? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. You definitely used a link to concise.Fleets (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did – that's exactly my point. So how does the first line of that article destroys your position on concise? And I'm still awaiting an answer to my above questions. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is that you used a link that does not support your moving the page, it's a point you've made but not a very good one. See the above reasoning.Fleets (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was based on concision; the counterargument was based on precision. The former is based in policy; the latter is not. So I fail to see how it is not a very good [point]. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concise - Fails. Precise - Correct. Policy - incorrect implementation of policy. Latter - both codes of rugby MOS and long-held existing policy. Just wasn't a great point, no great slight against you.Fleets (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@J Mo 101: To disambiguate from Thomas Wright (rugby) … What is ambiguous when there is no indication that the Scottish sportsperson you're citing was ever known by the name Tom?
… and standard naming conventions are to only use (rugby) if someone played in both codes of the sport [emphasis added]. Which provision of the relevant naming conventions are you referencing?
The section in NCSP appears to have been added without being discussed and probably needs to be updated. Then that sounds like a discussion for WT:NCSP, not an RM. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He is known as Tommy Wright according to ESPN. I think Tom and Tommy are similar enough to warrant disambiguation. In any case, union and league are completely separate sports and should be treated as such when disambiguating unless they have played both. This is consistent with other sports such as ice hockey or field hockey player articles, which don't just use (hockey) as a disambiguator. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tom and Tommy are similar enough to warrant disambiguation. How do you reconcile that position with WP:SMALLDETAILS? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really apply here, as neither are exclusively known by either shortened name (see article here referring to the Australian as "Tommy"). J Mo 101 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2018 (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.

NCSP

[edit]

I have taken what is MOS for both codes of rugby and worked it in here. Please feel free to tweak the wording if it is, in any way out of step with both codes of rugby and their respective MOS'.Fleets (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Wright_(1930s_rugby_league)&oldid=1210999943"