Talk:Brian Price (rowing)

Requested move 10 April 2018

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: consensus to move the page to Brian Price (rowing) at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

---

Brian Price (rower) → Brian Price (coxswain) – I've picked a reasonably well-developed article for a coxswain that has been edited by a multitude of editors over the years (i.e. hoping that this article is on many watchlists) to test whether fellow editors agree with the following thinking. Coxswains compete in the sport of rowing, but they don't engage in the activity of rowing itself; instead, they "cox" the team of rowers. As such, the disambiguator "coxswain" would appear more appropriate than "rower". We are in the process of tidying this up on Wikidata, using "coxswain" (d:Q1690874) instead of "rower" (d:Q13382576) for the field "occupation". Should we do the same change on the English Wikipedia? There are currently 281 bios in category:Coxswains (rowing), 35 of these require a disambiguator, and 34 of those use the dab "rower". I suggest we change the dab as per this proposal. If there's consensus, I'll move the other articles. If it's less clear but this article gets moved, I'll put the other 33 bios up for a mass move request. Schwede66 01:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 12:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The suggested dab method is quite jargon-y, something that WP:NCSP suggests to avoid: Avoid obscure or jargonistic terms, such as "pugilist", "karateka" and "billiardist". I'd rate "coxswain" as even more obscure than the offered examples. If (rower) is not appropriate, then I'd suggest switching to the name of the sport and use (rowing) across the board for rowers and coxswains alike. -- Netoholic @ 12:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I would go with (rowing) instead since it’s munch less obscure that the proposed title and is more accurate that (rower) since as mentioned this person does not actually row.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, 67.68.161.151. Could you clarify whether you would use "rowing" for coxswains and leave "rower" for everyone else, or would you like to see all dabs go to "rowing"? Schwede66 08:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I don’t have a strong view either way. Using rowing for all articles would be constant though in the case of the people that do row the issue that came up here is not a factor.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I think (rowing) is best also because of the probably inevitable case of someone being both a noted rower and a noted coxswain, and this way avoids debates between the two titles. -- Netoholic @

Nope. I can put you at ease on that front, Netoholic. In international rowing, it's happened exactly once that a cox became too heavy and came back as a rower a few years later – Peter Niehusen (and no need for a dab either). Sorry, I can't remember the name of the chap and thus can't point you to his bio. MisterSynergy, I know that property 'occupation' on Wikidata is set to both contain 'rower' and 'coxswain', but don't know how to search for that. Can you help? (and yes, I know you are on holiday this week) Schwede66 19:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Although you already found him, here is the Wikidata search result that identifies Niehusen as the only rower and cox. I have no idea whether he is really the only one, but I can confirm that this is an extremely rare scenario in rowing. —MisterSynergy (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Great evidence! I accept this rare exception doesn't need to be a consideration. --Netoholic @ 14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Not a rower and the proposed dab describes exactly what he is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

True but the excerpt that Netoholic earlier quoted from the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) when they opposed the proposal appears to actively recommend against using the proposed term due to its obscurity.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Coxswain an obscure term? Hardly! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence to support that it isn’t since as mentioned at least one person believes otherwise and has opossed for that reason?--67.68.161.151 (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Try doing a search on Google. "Coxswain" is no more obscure than "rower"! It's ludicrous to claim that a common English word is obscure just because you haven't heard it. English Wikipedia is written for people with at least a degree of English literacy and general knowledge. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I've put together this Google Ngram search comparing rower, coxswain, and the three terms that are mentioned in the guideline as obscure/jargony. Rower is used 2-3 times as much as coxswain, which is used about the same as pugilist (and keep in mind coxswain is also used more commonly as a military occupation per our primary topic coxswain). --Netoholic @ 14:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Look, this is a ridiculous argument. Anyone who's interested in rowing would know what a coxswain was. Even most people who weren't especially interested in rowing who'd watched the Olympics or the Boat Race would know what a coxswain was. And a common English term is not jargon. Ergo, as a disambiguator it is absolutely fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Everyone has different experiences and knowledge. I'm just presenting the evidence. --Netoholic @ 15:23, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support move to Brian Price (rowing). He is in fact, not a rower, so some move needs to occur. If "coxswain" is too specialized to be recognizable, using the sport may be better, as is done for Canadian soccer, football and ice hockey articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:32, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose move to coxswain. Disambiguators are for everyone, not just for those interested in rowing. The verb row (and thus its variations, such as rower) is meanwhile a common english word known by (all literate) children. I do have a "degree of English literacy and general knowledge." and I have no idea what the word means. I suppose I support the alternative moving to rowing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support a move to (rowing) since it appears that the discussion is leaning in that direction.--67.68.161.151 (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
• Comment by the proposer. I've listened to what various editors had to say and given this further thought. "coxswain" as dab is still my preference but that doesn't seem to get supported widely. My second preference is for coxes to be disambiguated with "rowing" whilst rowers keep their current dab of "rower". Therefore, we'd have a mix of dabs depending on what role people have. Schwede66 02:28, 26 April 2018 (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.

"(rowing)" is an interesting disambiguator ...

I'm just going to post my thoughts here about the use of the disambiguator "(rowing)" in this title since I cannot think of an alternative one other than "(coxswain)", and thus am not going to start a move request at this time:

Between the search for page titles containing "Rowing", the search for page titles containing "Rower", and the statement I made in my move diff (which was reverted for good reason), I would have never expected there to be consensus for the current title (so thus, I didn't expect the previous discussion on this talk page.) It seems that "rower" is used for biographies and "rowing" is used for terms and concepts related to the sport. However, if "(coxswain)" is out of the question, I cannot think of an alternative disambiguator to propose be used instead. Steel1943 (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)