Talk:Steve Smith (ice hockey)

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.

The result of the proposal was It's been two weeks and appears to be a clear concensus of Oppose. -Djsasso (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Here's the deal: there are two people by name of "Steve Smith" who have played in the NHL. Both were defencemen, both have Canadian citizenship, both played for multiple teams, and both were born in 1963. The main difference is that this one was born in Canada and the other one was born in Scotland. I previously had the page at Steve Smith (Canadian-born ice hockey player), but it was moved to its current name. The current name mentions that he was a defencemen and born in 1963, but these facts do not disambiguate him from the other guy. The previous name was shorter and we should strive to keep it as snappy as possible when we disambiguate. Snocrates 06:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support "defenceman b. 1963" does no disambiguation at all, serving only to lengthen the title. –Pomte 11:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose There was already a concensus gaining discussion at the WP:Hockey project to have it as Steve Smith (ice hockey) and James Stephen Smith which is his real name and causes the least disambig issues. When in disambig situations real name should be used where possible. -Djsasso (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • He is not known by that name so it is clearly inappropriate. He is known as "Steve Smith". We don't use full names just to disambiguate when they are not known by that name. We use the name the person is known by, plus a disambiguation term, if needed. Incidentally, it would be nice if editors would restrain themselves from moving pages undergoing a formal move proposal. It tends to mess up the links for the proposal. Somehow you've managed to reverse the talk pages for both players now!! Snocrates 21:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I was thinking the same thing when you moved them from the original name to your new name. You should have proposed your move before changing the name in the first place, because your request isn't really to change between yours and Mayumashu's names but to change from the name that the hockey project came up with and your own. There is a Steve Smith disambiguation page so using his real name is not an issue as people who search for Steve Smith will still easily find him. The talk pages are fixed. I am not sure how they got backwards but they are fixed now. -Djsasso (talk) 14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
      • There's nothing that says moves can't take place w/o discussion. However, once a formal proposal is under way, it's not a good idea to perform a move b/c is preempts a formal process. The use of the full name is an issue when it is contrary to WP conventions, which it is. Snocrates 21:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually it is not, convention states that full names should be used before resorting to bracketed disambiguators. This is the reason why we use middle names in article titles prior to resorting to bracketed disambiguators. As to the moves, yes controversial moves should not be made prior to having a discussion, its states as much on the move page. A quick look at this page and the millions of names that it has gone through would indicate that any move is a controversial one. -Djsasso (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Looks like you need to look at the conventions a bit closer ... That's OK, I'm used to dealing with people who commonly make the same mistake. Cheers, Snocrates 21:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: The disamibguation page and the {{for}} template make it clear which is the correct article for anyone arriving at the wrong one. --JD554 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: Things are just fine the way they are. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am not a big fan of how this is disambiguated now. However, I believe that the suggestion is not an improvement and I personally can't think of anything better. I'd be willing to support an alternate, but no one could think of anything good the last time this was discussed. -- JamesTeterenko (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: cumbersome proposal is not a better disambiguation. Flibirigit (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

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.