Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Thomas (American football official)

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

Article title discussion

[edit]

There seems to be some concern for the article title. Here are some thoughts as to why this location was selected. Per WP:NAME#Deciding_an_article_name, I found this language to be simplest and clearest way to differentiate this Sarah Thomas from the other Sarah Thomas's. It meets every aspect of the WP:NAME article. It is recognizable, it is easy to find (where as [[Sarah Thomas American football official) is a bit more cumbersome. It is precise as is necessary to identify the topic unambiguously and it is concise. It is also consistent with accepted terminology. Using American football in the title is unecessary and cumbersome. Using the word "official" is ambiguous to some degree as it could be associated with administrative roles outside of umpiring/refereeing. As the profession is currently recognized underneath the Referee page, I felt that referee was the best choice for the qualifying information. Iamnothuman (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected history-merge request

[edit]

Title of the article

[edit]
(copied here from Sarah Thomas (American football official))
  • As long as the resulting title is standard (either Sarah Thomas (American football) or Sarah Thomas (American football official), and non-Amerocentric. The Sarah Thomas (referee) title isn't even accurate for American football, as Thomas is a "line judge" not a "referee." Whatever way is easiest for you is fine by me, as long as the resultant title is accurate and non-Amerocentric. Thanks, UnitAnode 05:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article ultimately should reside at Sarah Thomas (referee) because that best meets the criteria laid out by WP:NAM and is actually "less" Amerocentric. You will find the term line judde listed under the page Referee. Hence the decision. We are unfortunately in a revert war and Unitanode does not care to discuss, he just wants to make his point - edit - and think that should stand. Iamnothuman (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that some discussion would have been preferred, however, the other user simply seems to blow past my comments and just do whatever he/she wants. I am still new to this, can you perhaps help me figure out how to handle this properly. I would rather not report him for WP:3RR. I guess this is what I get for being nice. Iamnothuman (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing to do is to decide on one page title for now, and redirect the other title here. We could do a page merge, but the histories are so small I'm not sure it matters, though I'll do it if people want. Then once a provisional title has been agreed, if there is still disagreement about the permanent title, follow the procedure for contentious moves on this page. Ideally, the title shouldn't have unnecessary words and should be descriptive, so Sarah Thomas (referee) would seem the best thing, but I'm not knowledgeable about the game, so I may be missing something. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you hit the nail on the head. I don't particularly care about the histories. Even though Sarah Thomas (referee) was in place first, the other user in this engagement seems particularly tied to the idea that "he created the article." Merging histories is not a factor and neither is the content. I think your rationale as to the naming of the article speaks specifically to why it should reside there. Sarah Thomas (referee) adheres to every aspect of WP:NAME while Sarah Thomas (American football official) fails on most levels. Iamnothuman (talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia cares about the history. There are some licensing issues, where the easiest process is to preserve both histories and merge them together. Content guidelines (see WP:CFORK, even though this is not a fork) specify that the duplicate articles should be merged. The issue then is where to merge it. Looking through Category:American football officials, of the pages which require disambiguation other than this one, 1 is disambiguated "(official)", 3 are "(American football)", and 8 are "(American football official)". None are disambiguated "(referee)". Based on that, I think the history should be merged to this page, with this discussion leading into a discussion on the name for the merged article. —C.Fred (talk) 06:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it probably needs to be discussed whether to merge history or not. I'm going to set up two sections below for two parallel discussions: whether to merge history and whether to move the page. —C.Fred (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point regarding histories is that I am simply not in a position to deal with it and am agreeable to whatever decision is made regarding the separate histories of the two pages. My major concern is that page is titled as accurately as possible. Iamnothuman (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History merge?

[edit]

Two parallel articles were developed: Sarah Thomas (referee) and Sarah Thomas (American football official). The two pages appear to have developed simultaneously; the histories do not make it clear that one was copied from the other. Accordingly, the question here is this:

Regardless of the ultimate title of the article, should the histories of the two articles be merged?

I say yes, they should be merged, as it covers us from the potential GFDL issues for not crediting authors of the earliest revisions. —C.Fred (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved at 23:12, 29 December 2009 by User:Unitanode — ækTalk 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Thomas (referee) → Sarah Thomas (American football official) — It removes the inaccuracy in the title (Thomas is a line judge, not a referee) and increases consistency with other articles in Category:American football officials that require disambiguation. —C.Fred (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, should I copy my comments from above down into this section? Iamnothuman (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, change of heart - I really have better things to do than argue over this. The other guy is just going to keep at it. He's not right, he just cares more. Merge and re-title away. Iamnothuman (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like how Iamnothuman threatens to edit-war on my talkpage, and then posts the above nonsense about me being "wrong" but that I "care more." I don't think he understands either the history merge process, or why his naming of the article was wholly inaccurate. Thus, move, making certain to merge histories. He didn't do much work in creating the initial stub, and his sloppy cut-and-paste has brutalized the histories of the two pages, but he was a few hours earlier than I was in creating the article, so the histories should reflect that. UnitAnode 12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually just clearing up a few things before I logout and stay logged out. I love how me asking you to stop reverting my edits is a sign that i wanted to edit war. You attacked me and did so with bad information, poorly formed arguments, and a failure to recognize that your initial article creation had less content than mine. This despite the fact that I tried hard to keep your work in place. I see that you've gone back to arguing with me on your talk page even though I said to keep discussions in one place. It's also apparent that you've had run in with other editors. I'm not going to stick around a community that cannot and does not support rational discussion, politeness, and common sense. Have fun living in your pissed off world with dramatic statements and nonsensical arguments. Iamnothuman (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty certain that no one believes you're really a new user, but that's beside the point. My informations wasn't "bad", nor were my arguments "poorly formed." I initially started out trying to simply explain to you why "(referee)" was a poor choice of clarifier, and why I chose to move the article back to the better title. I even did the legwork of finding out how to request a history merge, and placed such a request. You reverted, and left a snitty note on my talkpage. Now you're pretending to leave the project in a huff. You'll have a new userid in a matter of hours, I'd say. Hopefully, when you log in with that one, you'll be more willing to listen to reason when a situation like this arises. UnitAnode 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unitanode, I don't see your responses as helpful or justified. There's no indication that Iamnothuman is anything but a new user. He created the article before you did, and his choice of title, Sarah Thomas (referee), was perfectly reasonable. Instead of calm discussion about which title was more appropriate, this has somehow degenerated into harsh statements and ridicule. It's just an article title about a minor sportsperson—not worth all this. It would be great if you two would consider making amends in some way, just in case he really is a new user. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment. This discussion is only about what to call the article. It isn't about how we got to this point, who has how much editing experience, how she gets her hair under her hat, or anything other than what name the article should have going forward. Focus on the content—and that aspect of the content—and not the contributors or tangents. —C.Fred (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is frustrating, because I worked relatively hard to create a good article, treated Iamtheunknown with respect when he mistakenly did a copy/paste merge, undid merge with an explanation, and properly requested a history merge, so it would be acknowledged that Iamtheunknown had created a stub (which, because of the title, I never found, despite a thorough search) a few hours before I did. After reverting the copy/paste move, and requesting the history merge, Iamtheunknown reverted me without discussing it, and refused to acknowledge in any way what has now become very clear: his initial titling of the article was faulty, and a simple history merge would have solved all of these problems. Now C. Fred is again reverting to Iamtheunknown's mistaken copy/paste merge, apparently not realizing that that was the initial mistake in the whole process to begin with. Whatever the case, this is beyond frustrating, and it's just not worth it. You guys name it whatever you want. Merge it, don't merge it, whatever. I'll check back in a few days, and if the proper title is still a redirect, I'll just remove it from my articles created list. It's really not worth the headache it's been. UnitAnode 21:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and as a side note, all this copy/paste merging has basically scuttled any chance of this article getting a DYK feature, which it seemed well on its way to doing when Iamtheunknown butchered the history with the cut-and-paste move. UnitAnode 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on dyk and saw this hook. There is plenty of time for this to be straightened out as far as dyk is concerned, as dyk is very backlogged, at least to December 20 hooks. Also, I think User talk:Iamnothuman has left Wikipedia. I think he was just a new user. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 22:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comment. I guess we'll see how the whole DYK thing shakes out. As for Iamtheunknown I am 100% sure he wasn't a new user, and I have a suspicion about who he was. But as Fred said above, that's neither here nor there. Hopefully the history merge can be done quickly, the title corrected, and the article stabilized. The subject of the article is a very interesting woman, and I found enough sources that it could even be a GA or FA at some point, I think. That would obviously be at some point when I'm not quite so frazzled by all this mess going on right now, though. :) UnitAnode 22:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have merged the histories, so all that's left to do is decide on a title and make the page move. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking care of that side of things. As for the title, as C. Fred and myself have explained why the "(referee)" extension isn't proper, and why "(American football official)" is a far more accurate title, perhaps the move can be made now as well. UnitAnode 22:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally page move requests are left up for seven days. As C. Fred initiated it, it should probably be left up to him to decide whether to close it earlier. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 22:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't really have a problem with that, except that it will probably scuttle any chance it has at DYK. The people there have said that until the titling issues are settled, and I think the DYK-eligibility will expire if it runs a 7-day course here. Also, it's an obscure enough article, that I don't foresee a whole lot of further input on the discussion. UnitAnode 23:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • After SV's deletion to prepare for the move, and per the discussion above, I've moved the page to the appropriate title. If it sticks for several hours, I may renominate it for DYK. It's a really appropriate article for that venue, and the hook was solid. UnitAnode 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I've deleted the title Sarah Thomas (American football official) and Talk:Sarah Thomas (American football official). This means that a non-admin can move the current titles there once this discussion is over, so long as there's no contention—when a title already exists and has been edited, the tools are needed to make the move back to it, but now that the original titles are deleted, no tools should be needed. However, please don't move it until C. Fred agrees that the page-move discussion is completed. I've also merged the talk-page histories. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unitanode, you are really out of order here. I deleted those titles to make it easier for the move to be made once the discussion was over, and I asked you not to do anything until C. Fred had given the go-ahead. You've turned this situation into a bit of a dog's breakfast. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • <sigh> Revert it then. I didn't mean to get "out of line", I just thought that since your deletion of it followed the points I made about there being little chance of others contributing to the discussion, and that running it for 7 days would scuttle DYK chances, that your deletion was done in response to those points, and to prepare it for an immediate move. My apologies. UnitAnode 23:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revert if C. Fred or anyone else asks me to, but otherwise there's no point. There's a manic quality to this that I don't understand. You made the move two minutes after I deleted the titles, before I even had a chance to post on talk. I don't think I've ever seen so much back-and-forth over a simple page move. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only did it so quickly because I happened to be online, and thought that's why you deleted it. Also, I didn't expect this either, and I reacted defensively, probably because I spent several hours working this up for DYK, and it seemed to be just going poof! based on a copy/paste move. And the move was done after I'd placed a request to simply history merge the articles, which would have nipped all these problems in the bud. With that said, I apologize for my part of the madness of the last 24 hours or so. UnitAnode 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries, and thanks. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 23:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding dyk, the name change makes no difference and should not affect your current nomination one way or the other. If you want to make sure, ask at Wikipedia talk:Did you know and explain the situation. If the name gets changed there will be a redirect to take care of it. You can use piping to call the article whatever fits best with the hook. The dyk people do not care which of the proposed names is used, as either is appropriate enough for dyk purposes. You should credit Iamnothuman as the creator. You can add your name as co-creator if you want, plus credit yourself as nominator. They will look at the article history, so it is best to be clear about that. Otherwise, no problem. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't really matter to me who gets credited as the creator. The only reason I did it that way the first time was that I had no idea he'd written that two sentence stub. If I renominate it, I'll probably just collapse the previous discussion there, and change the creator to his username. Thanks again, Mattisse. UnitAnode 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you did at dyk nomination for Sarah Thomas was good. That should take care of it! Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 30 December 2009 (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.

Date of birth

[edit]

The AP article by Teresa Walker notes that she's 36.[1] She could turn 37 in December, after writing/publication of the story, so that means a year of birth of 1972 or 1973. Has anybody else seen her age mentioned in an article? —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. New York Times story this year has her at 35.[2] Simple math says that to turn 36 during the year, her birthday is in September–November, and she was born in 1973. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On subsections

[edit]

My reasoning behind the sub-sections is that it will make it easier to expand further with subsections in which to organize new information. UnitAnode 00:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

[edit]

I've done a quality classification for the two projects. IMO, the major missing item that keeps me from saying B-class is the infobox. However, I welcome other editors' opinions on this. —C.Fred (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Football League Official?

[edit]

The article pertaining to the United Football League (2009) indicates that a Sarah Thomas is an official for that league. I presume it is the same person listed in this article so I wiki-linked her here. However, I do not see her participation mentioned in this article. If someone could verify and add the info that would be great. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Thomas_(American_football_official)&oldid=1195566728"