Talk:George Jacobs (bridge player)

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 section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. This might indicate that moves should be considered for other pages that use "(bridge)" as their disambiguators, but any moves of those pages cannot be determined by this discussion alone. Dekimasuよ! 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hydromania, BarrelProof, and Facts707: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But Mr Jacobs is not a bridge; that seems confusing. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn; other similarly categorized articles do seem to use "(bridge)". —BarrelProof (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do support the objection - a reasonable person might think George Jacobs (bridge) is indeed a bridge. Suggest George Jacobs (contract bridge). Facts707 (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the objection. However note the Project/Contract Bridge MOS linked above.Hydromania (talk) 19:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never heard of a Wikiproject having its own "MoS" before. Is that common? It seems to usurp the position of
  WP:MOS. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not to determine the validity of it it, but see rugby AFL Chess Persian. You might want to open an RfC or something and have the guys at wikiproject Contract Bridge give their input. Maybe move all pages over to Bridge player as opposed to Bridge Hydromania (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC) @Newwhist: Hydromania (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Manual of Style for the Contract Bridge Wikipedia Project does not intend to usurp the Wikipedia Manual of Style but simply to supplement it in areas that are not expressly covered by it. The Project MOS deals primarily with matters of a technical nature and terms usage peculiar to contract bridge. Where any conflict exists, it is acknowledged that the Wikipedia Manual of Style should prevail. Newwhist (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how many of Category:American contract bridge players (bridge) are humans? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. Newwhist (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per
  George Jacobs (bridge) doesn't seem much more ambiguous than George Jacobs (basketball). - Station1 (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support the proposed move. Either
  George Jacobs (bridge) or George Jacobs (contract bridge) is acceptable usage to me although I prefer the latter. If the latter is preferred by consensus, then the Wikipedia Contract Bridge Project MOS should be amended. Newwhist (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose per
  WP:NCBIO; MoS has nothing to do with it, and I don't know why the nom mentioned MoS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There are plenty of similar disambiguators: basketball, tennis, American football, field hockey, ice hockey, volleyball, badminton, backgammon, bowls, ten-pin bowling, etc. They don't seem to confuse anyone. Station1 (talk) 05:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with the logic that '(bridge)' is not an appropriate disambiguation suffix for a person owing to the more general use of 'bridge' to signify a structure. However, the suffix '(bridge player)' is equally deficient insofar as an individual may be a bridge player, a bridge writer, a bridge administrator or combinations thereof. I suggest '(contract bridge)' as the disambiguation key in the article name if disambiguation is necessary and leave it to the use of the available categories to further refine the role of the individual within contract bridge. The Manual of Style for the Contract Bridge Project should be amended accordingly. Newwhist (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – he's not a bridge. The guideline says (first) "The word or phrase in parentheses should be:...the generic class..." Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 1) I think the meaning of oppose and support is getting a bit confusing. 2) I nominated the page (really just listed it under Non controversial moves) to conform to the MoS. As we're now discussing the norm itself, I support changing the disambiguator on all bridge player articles to either (Contract Bridge) or (Bridge Player). Note that the latter makes more sense but the former also covers those whose notability in bridge is for something other than playing e.g. writers. Hydromania (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—you're kidding. Titles are for all readers, not just people at particular wikiprojects who are very familiar with the topic. Is George Jacobs a bridge? Could well be. Tony (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per others. I appreciate that the nom is merely trying to follow convention, but in this case I think the convention is wrong. "Bridge" is not an adequate disambiguator for contact bridge players. PC78 (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we just go ahead and move all (bridge) articles to (contract bridge)? Hydromania (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  No, but you could make a

  multi-article move proposal. - Station1 (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Is there no better place to propose this change? The issue is not moving the pages but changing the MoS/convention Hydromania (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  You could start a

  WP:CONCISE. - Station1 (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.