Talk:Craig Brown (footballer, born 1940)

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

Did he play enough games for Dundee to win a championship medal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinUK (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

Some excellent work was done on this article in the last few months. But I wonder if the article would be better at a simpler title, perhaps Craig Brown (manager). There are other Craig Browns who've managed, but it seems that ours is the one for whom the job of manager is clearly the main source of notability. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've answered your own question. "Manager" or "Football manager" is ambiguous. "Footballer, born 1940" is not. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What question? Sorry to have provoked such discourtesy, I posted the message above and left a month for discussion before performing the move. I'm not sure what the problem is, do you contend that Craig Brown is not WP:Primary usage for Craig Brown (football manager)? I have launched an RM proposal where this can be clarified. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2023[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Brown (footballer, born 1940) → Craig Brown (football manager) – The current article location is unnecessarily long and unintuitive. Titles containing nationality and date of birth are only necessary when there are multiple article with no clear WP:Primary usage. Craig Brown's source of notability is primarily as a football manager rather than player, and he is clearly primary usage for Craig Brown (football manager), if not indeed for Craig Brown. Per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY, Craig_Brown_(footballer,_born_1940) 20,836 view last year compared to Craig_Brown_(footballer,_born_1893) 235 views last year and Craig_Brown_(footballer,_born_1971) 267 views last year. I thought this was a rather uncontroversial proposal providing a minor piece of tidying, and carried out the move after requesting commentary on the talk page, but I found that my work was mass reverted without explanation soon after, so I am launching the formal RM. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. The proposed title is ambiguous, because Craig Brown (footballer, born 1971) was also a football manager. That defeats the whole point of using brackets. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    N.B. the rationale for the reversion of your move was given by User:Ortizesp here diff - "reverting page move as per convention for at NFOOTY". The fuller link to these naming conventions is here - "If there are multiple footballers with the same name, use the most conclusive of the following steps:
    a. If the footballers have different nationalities, use their nationality in the disambiguation.
    b. If the footballers were born in different years, use the year they were born.
    c. If one of the footballers is, for example, a goalkeeper, use "(goalkeeper)", or other position as appropriate."
    All of the Craig Brown footballers are Scottish, so a. isn't relevant. They were all born in different years (1893, 1940 and 1971), which is conclusive. It's not even as if they were born in years that are close together, which can sometimes cause ambiguity. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The justification for the move and RM was not ambiguity, but precision and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. These are keys in Wikipedia's disambiguation process, it's not just about whether there is ambiguity. I'd urge you to read the RM rationale above, and see response to Ortizesp further below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I followed up the reversion of your move by reverting your edits to various templates that involve Craig Brown, because they no longer linked to the correct article title e.g. Aberdeen managers. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, he's not the only Craig Brown that was a manager, so birthyear is just the easiest disambiguator. In terms of long-term significance, I don't think he's necessarily PRIMARY either and the biggest chunk of page views was the month that he died for obvious reasons.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look again at the RM rationale, Ortizesp, it should be clear that I did not launch it on the basis that there is no ambiguity; but on the basis of 1) clear primary usage (per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) for the Scotland manager and 2) the Scotland manager is not primarily known as a 'footballer' but a manager.
    To your position and the reasoning you've offered, I'd point out that on English Wikipedia there are three Scottish football figures, two of whom are stated to be managers. One was an international manager who qualified and participated in the World Cup and Euros, the other managed a Scottish junior team. Forget data for the moment, are you seriously suggesting that there is no primary usage here?
    Anyone with common sense would know that if you mentioned 'Craig Brown' is casual conversation in any context where Scottish football is expected to be familiar, no-one would think you meant anyone but the Scotland manager.
    But OK, we can't be using that as an argument, per WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT if nothing else. Judging primary usage objectively isn't an exact science, and with a topic like a Scottish football manager google isn't going to be of much use. But we do have some reliable data, the best of which here is viewer counts per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY. So our Scottish national team manager had:
    And compare:
    You volunteered, in anticipation of this evidence, the argument that the Scottish national team manager's results would be distorted by his recent death. I agree that some distortion is likely for the month in question (June-July this year), but I don't think that distortion would extend to last month. In any case, lets looks at the viewing figures for last year, which predates the death:
    And compare:
    From this, our manager has 100 times the views of the other Scottish football figures. If that's not primary usage, then what is?
    The viewership suggests that there is no clear primary usage for Craig Brown. One might want to point to the the interwikis for better context: the Scotland manager has 19 articles in other languages, the satirist has only one, suggesting the latter does not have significant prominence outside the Anglosphere--but again this RM does not propose Craig Brown as the new home for our article but Craig Brown (football manager). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for providing evidence that there isn't a clear primary topic among the Craig Browns. That means some form of disambiguation is needed. As per the WP:FOOTY guidelines, the clearest way of doing this is by year of birth. Another problem with your proposal is that it ignores Craig Brown's playing career - he won a league championship with Dundee (the only one in their history), and probably would have had more success but for a bad knee injury. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you aren't offering any argument or evidence. Craig Brown as I have proven is WP:Primary usage among Scottish football personalities (how he is currently titled) and is primarily known as a manager, irrespective of your counter-historical speculation about his playing career. Forcing me to repeat this again is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, Also, WP:FOOTY is a project page and not a guideline page, and does not support your position other than to provide some (if I may, rather clumsy) options for cases where primary usage is absent, which is not the case here. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't "counter historical" to point out that he won a league championship as a player. Forcing me to repeat this again (sic) is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. For your information, the naming conventions is a guideline page (WP:NCSP), not a project. You also seem to be missing the point that primary usage is absent here, because as you helpfully pointed out the satirist has about the same number of page views as the late Scotland manager. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, the RM is not for Craig Brown but Craig Brown (football manager), it is for the latter that there is clear primary usage. Do I need to say that in yet another way, or is four different ways enough? Also, you said' and probably would have had more success but for a bad knee injury. ', that's what's counter-historical, I thought that would have been obvious, I guess my communication skills are in free fall as I age! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:29, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving the article to (football manager) is pointless. It still involves parantheses, and is somewhat ambiguous (unlike the year of birth). All this while ignoring the established naming conventions. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Jmorrison, it follows the established naming conventions in fact, the use of 'football manager' in parentheses is widespread (as you will see navigating the categories); and it also follows a higher, wider Wikipedia norm of using main source of notability as the main point for disambiguation, per WP:NCPDAB, 'the disambiguator is usually a noun indicating what the person is noted for being in their own right', a Wikipedia level guideline page, versus stuff you've misinterpreted from a project page. Craig Brown is best known as a football manager, and is the only football manager widely known by that name. He is not widely known as a footballer born in 1940, the current title is needlessly convoluted and burdensome on users and writers of the 'Pedia. I honestly had no idea I'd encounter this tedious nonsense just trying to improve the title. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 19:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above, ambiguous and against standard naming conventions - and I suggest that @Deacon of Pndapetzim: stops badgering people here. GiantSnowman 19:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, nice try with the insults, I'm not caving in to a bully squad, my arguments for this move are sound and based on good sense and practice, and if this RM comes down to a few maverick pals playing bully over reason and guidelines I'll take it for an RfC. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No insults. Your arguments are weak and the consensus is clearly against you. Your editing is becoming disruptive, as are your threats of a RFC when you don't get your own way. GiantSnowman 20:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're were trying to refer to my commentary, all of which is here, as 'badgering', why? We are supposed to discuss the problems, you are disrupting it by framing my contributions in an insulting way, presumably in the expectation that you will gain from it--sorry if this is not the best WP:AGF I can't what else you expect from it. If my arguments are weak, tell me why, why keep it a mystery? You don't have to elaborate, but your contribution should be weighed accordingly by any seasoned, judicious closer. I am an editor in good standing with 20 years experience and multiple FAs, if I have an opinion I am entitled to make it without the sort of reaction you are offering. The RM will run its course, and consensus will be determined per the process, it's not for you to forecast at this stage. RM discussions often begin with support heavily on one side because many users are allied in sympathy or close to an proponent or opposer, the process running its course helps broaden the process and gives a better idea of what the real consensus actually is. Regarding the RfC point, it will have nothing to do with 'losing'. I've 'lost' many RMs, including where I was clearly correct, I don't expect Wikipedia's consensus process to be satisfactorily judicious or always to work well. I'm just saying that if the RM does turn out to be no more than a bunch of Project pals with WP:OWN issues dropping supportive 'votes', laying insults, and clearly subverting wider norms on an isolated article page, I may seek wider commentary. An RFC as I understand it still the standard way of resolving this sort of issue, but I also want to discourage bullying tactics by offering the possibility that they will be subject to scrutiny. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:07, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been explained to you - there is consensus (yes, at WT:FOOTBALL, but reflected wider) that somebody who is a player then a manager should be 'footballer', and also that moving this article to 'manager' is ambiguous. You repeatedly referring to insults when there have been none is really poor, and your constant dismissal of 'a bunch of Project pals' is not AGF. GiantSnowman 20:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By 'it's been explained to you'* you mean I think that there's been a claim that the current name reflects common practice for footballers, but for me it's not been substantiated or weighed with any measure against my own argument; no-one so far has explicitly said that 'somebody who is a player then a manager should be 'footballer' ', which is not in any guideline and from category browsing alone can clearly be seen to be a factually inaccurate description of the current situation. Regarding insults, I refer to the way you tried to frame my commentary, which you will upon reflection recognise as insulting if you give it any thought. Finally, there is nothing wrong with a 'bunch of Project pals', it's entirely natural and I respect the arguments that anyone makes when they are sound, but we have to be clear that the RM requests wider input than a small tightly knit group, especially if another is not part of it and is being attacked for having the temerity to have an alternative opinion; and tightly knit groups do not represent, by themselves, 'consensus' on Wikipedia. *NB this is an insulting way of phrasing your point, it makes it sound like you think you are talking to a child or someone of lower standing, which is not the case. It is possible that you are aggravated yourself or may be trying to irritate intentionally, but on WP:AFG you are entitled to the presumption of innocence here so I'm explaining it to you. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hilarious that you are complaining that people are not assuming good faith with you, when you have just made a pointy move reversion at Hugh Shaw (football manager) (diff). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How much sense does it make to start initiating page moves on the basis of a premise actively being disputed at an ongoing WP:RM that you helped produce? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Craig_Brown_(footballer,_born_1940)&oldid=1205256408"