Talk:Dan Hanley (footballer)

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

Requested moves[edit]

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: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 08:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]



– Per WP:NCSP, "footballer" is reserved for association footballers not Australian rules footballers. Completely different sports. Ideally, "Australian rules footballer" is better suited in the parentheses than the potentially ambiguous "Australian footballer", but from a search it looks like "Australian footballer" is already widely-used on Wiki for Australian rules footballers. Timmyshin (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. A disambiguator is only to be as precise as necessary to disambiguate the use in question from other uses of the same name. For example, there are only two other Dan Hanley's listed at the Daniel Hanley dab page. One is a film editor and the other a physician - so footballer is a more than adequate disambiguator in this case. Australian footballer is more precision than is necessary. Such a title would incorrectly suggest that there is another Dan Hanley footballer that is not of Australian variety. But there isn't. Let's not be misleading. --В²C 00:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No where on WP:NCSP does it say that footballer is "reserved for" association football/soccer players. Unless there are others players of football codes with articles, the titles are precise enough and unambiguous. Jevansen (talk) 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think changing WP:NCSP to make the same sort of distinctions as between American football and American soccer, given Harry Williams (Australian soccer player) etc. then (Australian rules footballer) would be a good idea, but we don't do it so far Category:Australian_rules_footballers_from_Victoria_(Australia) and an RFC not a RM is required. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "footballer" should NOT be reserved for soccer. If it is it is spectacular bias in favor of British English, and should be changed to use "association footballer" for all British soccer players, if these are moved. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per requirement for "shortest name that is unambiguous". "Australian" can be added if needed for further disambiguation later. The claim that "footballer" is reserved for association footballers not Australian rules footballers is false.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2014 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dan Hanley (footballer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]