Talk:Tommy Smith

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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.

Tommy Smith → Tommy Smith (disambiguation) — BlackJack (talk · contribs) wished to move Tommy Smith (Liverpool footballer) to Tommy Smith, and this page to Tommy Smith (disambiguation). BlackJack performed a cut & paste move, which is against policy, and I have since reverted it and returned things to the previous status quo. Please discuss and reach a consensus on what to do below before proceeding with any further page moves, thank you. Qwghlm 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC) —Qwghlm 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Oppose - no convincing reason for the change. Looking at the edit histories for some of the articles, we see:

Tommy Smith (Liverpool footballer): 50 edits since 23 January 2006

Tommy Smith (Watford footballer): 50 edits since 30 August 2006

Tommy Smith (saxophonist): 50 edits since 04 November 2005

Tommy Smith (DJ): 50 edits since 06 August 2005

There is not a huge disparity in frequency of edits between these articles; while there has been an increase at the Liverpool article recently, it is not sufficient to warrant that article taking precedence over the other ones. As well, a Google search on the name has hits for the saxophonist and a track star first. --Ckatz^chat _spy 00:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Liverpool player is the most famous of the Tommy Smiths, but not by enough to justify having him as THE Tommy Smith (and I take offence at Watford nonentity!). Also, can we move the footballers back to "born 45" and "born 80", enyclopedically they make far more senese. HornetMike 01:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with HornetMike about sorting the footballers out using years of birth, preferably after a dab page has been set which explains where all the Tommy Smiths are, WikiGull 08:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my idea at first on my talk page which seemed pretty much dismissed! Seems the most fair and right way for it to be done. Mattythewhite 08:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there are simply too many uses to establish a primary usage. Vegaswikian 07:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Leave it as it is. Let's not start an endless discussion about who is the best known of these. With this many Tommy Smiths, a disambiguation page is appropriate. ●DanMS • Talk 22:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:DAB, etc. This Tommy Smith is not so overwhelmingly well known that Tommy Smith should not remain a dab page. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)›
Oppose. I'd even suggest that Tommy J. Smith might be a more common meaning of Tommy Smith... within his field, he was far more notable. Leave Tommy Smith as a disambig. Andrewa 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as a pair of common English names, there are likely to be more notables in future-assigning the primary to one is vanity. Chris 01:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I don't support disambiguating players according to their current team. Players are known to change team with notable frequency, so they should be disambiguated by birth year rather than the club they are playing for. --Angelo 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users are free to move articles. Is there a standard for these players concerning disambiguation? Vegaswikian 20:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that disambiguating by the current team seems pretty silly during their playing careers, and it won't work for all players after retirement either. Year of birth might be a possibility. How exactly would it be implemented? Andrewa 15:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could check to see if there is a wiki project in this area and ask there. Or look in the categories to see what other articles have done. You could simply announce your intention on the article talk page with your reason. If no serious objections go ahead and make the move. If the proposed target already exists, you would have to come back here. They should all be uncontested moves so the shorter process would apply. Vegaswikian 20:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 06:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]