Talk:Peter Baker (footballer, born 1931)

Sheffield Wednesday?

A Peter Baker played for Sheffield Wednesday for six months in the 1957-58 season, making twelve appearances.[1] Is it possible that this is the same Peter Baker, perhaps on a loan deal? Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Peter Baker (footballer) → Peter Baker (footballer born 1931) — Another footballer was born in 1934 and played in the same era, both players started their career at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and could easily be confused by readers with little previous knowledge of either subject. Suggest adding year of birth to this page name and redirecting the old name to the Peter Baker dab page to avoid confusion. —Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

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.

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Two grounds firstly there is a clear distinction in notability between the two individuals and secondly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) suggests in such cases a clear disamb message can successfully resolve any potential confusion. Tmol42 (talk) 11:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Since the supposedly disambiguating title of Peter Baker (footballer) is not in fact disambiguating, the alternative must be either Peter Baker (with no disambiguation) or Peter Baker (footballer born 1931) (with an actually disambiguating title). Even if the Baker born '31 seems to be more notable, it's not clear that he is so much more notable than the other to have his article title without disambiguation. Sebisthlm (talk) 13:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, agree with Sebisthlm above. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support, as per all the above. If it were up to me, I would just make the move. It seems blindingly obvious to me to be the right thing to do. After all, defining notability is not far from PoV. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support per above BanRay 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggest simpler disambiguator than birth year, e.g., (right back) and (fullback), which would more readily distinguish between them. Dekimasuよ! 07:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Since right back and fullback are pretty much interchangeable terms, I don't think that that would be very helpful. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. When I created this article I wasn't aware of the other footballer; if I was, I would probably have created it under the suggested new name and this discussion wouldn't be taking place. As someone says above, it's the obvious thing to do. Waggers (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Desi Deki(masu). The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Who is "Desi"? Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 17:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • As stated above, I don't think that right back and fullback would be helpful for dab purposes. If you can suggest a simpler solution than birth year then by all means do, but to me this seems the best way to disambiguate the two pages and is already common practise when two footballers have the same name. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support, birth year is good to disambiguate by. Punkmorten (talk) 10:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• WP:D states that: If there is extended discussion about which article truly is the primary topic, that may be a sign that there is in fact no primary topic, and that the disambiguation page should be located at the plain title with no "(disambiguation)". Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• I am not experienced enough to know if 3/4 of us politely debating this yet constitutes 'extended' CF the typical WP way. I guess my question is whether disam with DoB 1931 vs 1934 is the best/only approach given the history/ notability here. True there seem to be current examples where two dates are used but an equal number where one has a date and the other does not. Tmol42 (talk) 12:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what constitutes extended discussion either, but I feel that the current "disambiguation" isn't particularly helpful. I am aware that there are several examples of this sort of disambiguation (where one has a date and the other does not) already, and have recently "fixed" several myself. I feel that they all need to be ammended (assuming that we can come to a consensus here and use this as a "test case"), and am happy to change any that anyone knows of. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 13:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Outcome

Y Discussion for three weeks provided consensus to move. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.