Talk:John Adams (offensive lineman)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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: Rename to John Adams (offensive lineman), and redirect John Adams (American football) to the disambiguation page at John Adams (disambiguation). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

– Fails WP:AT CRITERIA on WP:DAB Ambiguous disambiguation. John Adams (running back) is also an American footballer. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * John Adams (American football) → John Adams (offensive lineman)
 * Note - proposal amended from disambiguation by birth year following clarification from User:BDD (to whom thanks) of American football dab standards below In ictu oculi (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (see below) The proposal argument cites WP:CRITERIA at WP:AT and claims the current title "fails", but the argument itself fails to explain which specific criteria is not met.  Instead, it cites WP:DAB, which is about "resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous - when it refers to more than on etopic covered by Wikipedia". But there is no conflict here; each article has a unique title that has always referred to the topic of the respective article. Creators of both articles chose appropriate titles that did not conflict with others.  John Adams (football player) was created in 2007 by , and then moved to John Adams (American football) by , citing "Naming conventions", on September 18, 2008 .  John Adams (running back) was created in 2009 by  .  There is no record in the history or talk pages of either article about anyone else having any kind of issue at all with either of these titles.  Until now. I'm sure  means well and believes this move will improve WP somehow, but this proposal seems to be a quintessential violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, made clearly in response to this and that edit from yesterday.  See also: WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."  I, for one, fail to see the "good reason to change it" here.  Not only have these titles been stable, they've never even been questioned.  This is exactly the kind of move proposal to which WP:TITLECHANGES refers.  It should have never seen the light of day.   --B2C 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the reason why other editors have become aware of this article is due to User:Born2cycle having found it, introduced it as a precedent in RM at Talk:People (magazine) People (Australian magazine) and added it to WP:PDAB. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * B2C, I admire you for generally insisting on policies that put readers first, but I can't help but wonder if you're letting another discussion cloud your judgment on this one. If a reader types in "John Adams (American football)," are they more likely looking for the linebacker or the running back? This isn't like Thriller, where we can be reasonably certain of what's being sought. The commonsense solution, then, is to treat it as the ambiguous search term that it is and redirect to a dab. There are many reasons that this issue hadn't been raised before. I'm quite surprised to hear you cite TITLECHANGES in such a way. Adherence to naming conventions is a pretty darn good reason to change a title. In this case, it sounds like you're opposing change just for the sake of it. I think there's a term for that... --BDD (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ha. Just saw this after my change from oppose to neutral.  Must have been typing it in while you posted it.  But, okay, you've convinced.   I'll now change from neutral to support.  --B2C 23:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose, but move this one to John Adams (offensive lineman). IIO's arguments are essentially correct, but unlike association football, American football players usually are disambiguated by position if (American football) is insufficient. Birth years really only need to come into play when two players have the same name and position; this does happen from time to time. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support as amended. --BDD (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral. see below --B2C 23:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC) As amended, there is nothing wrong with the proposed title. But no one has explained what's wrong with the current title, or why it needs to be changed. In the event that someone looking for the running back inadvertently lands on this page, I added a hatnote . I note that if this article is moved as proposed, there will be no good policy based reason to move it back to what is its current title.  Per the WP:Yogurt Principle, that favors the proposal, except that there is also no good policy based reason to move it now.   --B2C 21:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought you had agreed not to use the short cut and only User:Born2cycle/Yogurt Principle to show this is a User space essay which was objected to in essay space by other editors? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Support. Convinced by BDD.  The proposed title adheres to naming conventions for disambiguating ambiguous American football players better than does the current title.  --B2C 23:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What, does this guy not have primary topic for John Adams? Face-smile.svg Support. Red Slash 03:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.

Hat note link to John Adams (disambiguation)
I think there needs to be a link from here to John Adams (disambiguation). The obvious method is the hatnote.

BDD reverted. "None of these other people would be plausibly sought under this title."

I disagree with the revert. It's not that I sought other John Adams by coming to this title, but I can to this title curious about the very common name, and wonder whether he might be related. On arrival, I discover a stub, but then I want review the John Adams I recall. Frustratingly, there are no useful links out from here. The hatnote feeds into a walled garden with the other footballer. Being here and wanting another John Adams is more than plausible, and having no easy way out is frustrating. I think the more generic hatnote to the disambiguation page should be restored. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've just come across an RfC discussing this more generally; it may be more fruitful to join in there. See Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. Quick note: while this article currently wouldn't qualify as a "non-ambiguous title," that's very likely to change after this RM, and the existing hatnote already links to the other article that could plausibly be at this title. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)