This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
The following is a closed 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: No consensus. It looks like close to a consensus that "black footballer" is not a good disambiguator, but no consensus on what to replace it with. I suggest a new RM after someone studies the options and assembles a good case for one or two, since the current discussion has gotten too fragmented to converge. (
non-admin closure)
Dicklyon (
talk)
05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I agree that the current names are not ideal, but at least they are accurate - where is your evidence that the Scottish footballer was born in the 1850s, or that the English footballer was born in the 1870s? For instance, given the latter was active in the late 1890s, and that many footballers begin their senior careers at 17-19, he could have been born in 1880.
GiantSnowman21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Given that the Scottish player's compatriot was born in 1856 and two played together, he would appear to be too old to have been born in the 1840s and too young to have been born in the 1860s, therefore "(born 1850s)" would seem to be acceptable. As for the other player, again, while 1880 is a possibility, "(born 1870s)", appears to be more likely. The use of "fl.", while acceptable for antiquity, may have the tendency to unbalance the chronological structure of the footballers' listings upon the disambiguation page, all of which are based upon the birth year. Thus,
Robert Walker (footballer, born 1884) might be found listed before
Robert Walker (footballer, fl. late 1890s), although the latter had to have been born in the 1870s or, at least, in 1880.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)00:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
I think the titles themselves are more important than the issues that might potentially arise when ordering these titles in a list. Articles are supposed to present what information is available about the subjects they cover. So long as information on these individuals' dates of birth is not available in external sources, the proposed dates remain little more than very good guesses. --
Theurgist (
talk)
13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose – we simply can't title articles according to our own guesswork. As already said, the current names may not be particularly satisfactory, but at least they aren't
WP:OR.
Jellyman (
talk)
17:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename to anything other than "black footballer". It is appalling to disambiguate someone by skin color. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, not a
pencil test in
1950s South Africa. @
GiantSnowman:, the one source identifies him as a "black footballer". But it's a very short article (a terse stub bordering on sub-stub), with only one source, so it's a wild stretch to say that's what he's best known for. All we can conclude from the evidence so far is that one source looked at that aspect of his life, not that it is representative of the broader spread of coverage. Robert Walker (Third Lanark A.C. footballer) (as proposed by
Lugnuts) is neutral and unambiguous and verifiable. I see no valid reason to prefer a racial diambiguator. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)reply
To clarify, I went with the "Third Lanark A.C. footballer" disambig qualifier to match the category this individual is in. I've no issue with it being "Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers" instead. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids07:41, 10 February 2017 (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.
The following is a closed 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.
Support, also willing to go with the anachronism. My hunch is to drop "footballer" as over-precise disambiguation, though with the old club name, it's going to make it look like a military biography. --
BDD (
talk)
16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - just get it moved to any title other than the current one, which is just awful. Could he not just go to
Robert Walker (Scottish footballer), which currently just redirects to the dab page? I know there is also
this stellar individual, but I would argue that the 19th century Robert Walker is just about more notable (ignoring his ethnicity, he actually seems to have won a major trophy). We could then place the relevant hats on the two articles and probably one's on the couple of Robert Walker's from Scotland who played football under the name Bobby, but don't let me stand in the way of dabbing by club if it is a means to an end.
Fenix down (
talk)
16:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Fenix down: Like you, I reckon that just about anything is better than the current title. So if thee was a binary choice between the status quo and
Robert Walker (Scottish footballer), I'd go with your suggestion. However, I don't like disambiguators which leave us with a title that is still ambiguous, so I would prefer some sort of unique title. But any change is better than no change. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Support in comparison with current title, although as the proposed new one is somewhat long-winded, how about the more concise
Robert Walker (3rd LRV footballer)? This was the standard abbreviation format used in the contemporary Scottish press to refer to the club, and to the numerous other military-based teams of the era.
Jellyman (
talk)
17:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Support the original title will still serve as a redirect for those concentrating on the (important) race angle, while being less offensive to have a non-race based title.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
11:05, 28 March 2017 (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.