Talk:Robert Walker (Third Lanark footballer)

	Biography portal 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
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Football: Scotland Low‑importance

	Association football portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Scottish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 1 February 2017

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]

– The first Walker should have a qualifier analogous to that of fellow black player, Andrew Watson (footballer, born 1856), as well as to qualifiers used for Robert Walker (footballer, born 1884), Robert Walker (footballer, born 1982) or Robert Walker (footballer, born 1987). The second Walker needs a qualifier more specific than "(English footballer)" since Robert Walker (footballer, born 1884) was also an English footballer. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 20:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 21:32, 1 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. Giant Snowman 21:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: How about Robert Walker (footballer, fl. 1870s) for the former and Robert Walker (footballer, fl. 1898–99) or Robert Walker (footballer, fl. late 1890s) for the latter? (See floruit.) --Theurgist (talk) 22:19, 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]
  - Using 'fl' is messy, confusing, possibly ambiguous, and I've never seen it before on footballer (or any other) articles. Giant Snowman 20:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about Robert Walker (Third Lanark A.C. footballer) to remove all ambiguity, issues over black and floruit, and any definitive dates. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's known for being an early black footballer, so that is more of an identifier than the club he played for. Giant Snowman 19:40, 3 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]
Oppose as written, since we shouldn't engage in guesswork. I support some of the alternatives in principle, but prefer Robert Walker (footballer, active 1870s) and Robert Walker (English footballer, active 1890s). I think those will be more meaningful to a general audience than Latin abbreviations. (As unwieldy as the latter suggestion is, Bobby Walker (footballer, born 1879) seems to necessitate the nationality going in there too.) --BDD (talk) 21:27, 9 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]
Agreed. I cringed when I saw this title. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, isn't Robert Walker (Third Lanark A.C. footballer) anachronistic, as opposed to Robert Walker (Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers footballer)? If that looks incredibly awkward, it might be because we don't typically disambiguate by club. Would anyone suggest Robert Walker (Manchester United F.C. footballer) for the other? Whatever you say about (black footballer), it at least appears unambiguous, unlike (English footballer). And if we do resort to club disambiguation, "footballer" may not be necessary anyway, so Robert Walker (Third Lanark A.C./Robert Walker (Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers) and Robert Walker (Manchester United F.C.). --BDD (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't usually disambiguate by clubs, because footballers typically play for several clubs in the course of their careers. However, if other options fail then there's no reason why we can't do it as a least worst solution.
  I'd be fine with any of BDD's suggestions. But I'd even be fine with Robert Walker (19th century Scottish footballer with the Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers and then Parkgrove, whose date of birth is currently unknown to Wikipedia but will hopefully be found by some diligent researcher of these matters) ... because even that splurge of redundant verbosity is better than emulating the output of an Office for Race Classification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 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. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:41, 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.

The result of the move request was: Move to Robert Walker (Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers footballer) -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 March 2017

Robert Walker (black footballer) → Robert Walker (Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers footballer) – the current title is a disgrace to an NPOV enyclopedia. Labelling someone solely by their skin colour may have been acceptable when 1950s South Africa was implementing the Population Registration Act, but it is not how en.wp does things.
A move discussion in February closed as "no consensus" because it had gotten fragmented by too many issues, but discussion had begun to focus on using the player's club as a disambiguator: Robert Walker (Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers footballer), or Robert Walker (Third Lanark A.C. footballer). The club was known as "Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers" when Walker played for it, but was subsequently renamed to Third Lanark A.C., and known as that for most of its history. I prefer the Robert Walker (Third Lanarkshire Rifle Volunteers footballer) to avoid anachronism, but support either as an alternative to the current, racially-based title.
Note that the other common disambiguators of nationality and/or year of birth are unworkable here: his year of birth is unknown, and his nationality alone does not produce a unique disambiguator. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Lugnuts, BDD, Roman Spinner, Theurgist, GiantSnowman, and Jellyman, who all participated in the previous discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per the nom's rationale of the name of the club at the time. I'd also support the dismabig of Robert Walker (Third Lanark A.C. footballer), if there's a consensus to do so. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 14:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 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]
- That would be fine by me. I have no preference between the abbreviated and unabbreviated forms, and would be happy with either. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while I stand by the article's original title (because that is what he is notable for) I agree a move is needed. Giant Snowman 19:14, 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]
Support per nomination and "Support" votes above. I also agree that the use of Robert Walker (Scottish footballer) alongside Robert Walker (footballer, born 1982) would have left us with incomplete disambiguation similar to the one we still have on the same dab page with Robert Walker (English footballer) and Robert Walker (footballer, born 1884). —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the original proposal or the more WP:CONCISE Robert Walker (3rd LRV footballer).--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:10, 3 April 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.