Wikipedia

Talk:Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983)

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Nikkimaria in topic MOS
Learn more about this page

Picture

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What can be done about trimming his picture? It looks ridiculous.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC) They've trimmed Hazem el Masri's to.--CiaoCiao101 (talk) 12:00, 31 December 3099—Preceding undated comment added at 06:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 5 external links on Cameron Smith. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Cameron Smith. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Disambiguation

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There is another professional rugby league footballer who has played dozens of games for Leeds, shouldn't this page go to Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983)?Theanonymousentry (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

At this point, this Cameron qualifies for primary topic IMO.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.79.160 (talk) 22:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
The Melbourne skipper would be primary, but then there is Cameron Smith (disambiguation) to consider.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

[1]

Requested move 30 May 2019

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments12 people in discussion
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cameron Smith. Have given this some thought for a while before closing this discussion. Briefly, those opposing the move have largely argued that the subject of this article does not fulfil the requirements of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to merit residence at the name without any disambiguation or qualification. That argument has largely been rebutted by those who support the move, among other arguments, noting an analysis of pageviews for the article titles that have this name, that this subject has a majority of views over an extended period of time. Other arguments that those supporting the page move were sufficient to rebut the opposition.

The final deciding factor here is that this article resided at the proposed destination, according to the page logs, since 2006. Absent a clear consensus to move the article away from it's original title (and that consensus doesn't exist here), the default should be to restore the article to it's original page.

All of these factors combined support a move back to it's original title. I would recommend the hatnote be clarified to something along the lines of This article is about The Australian rugby player. For other people with similar names, see Cameron Smith (disambiguation). (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin 17:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983) → Cameron Smith – Since this was moved without broad discussion, i thought i would start it. This Cameron Smith is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, by guideline 1 - pageviews higher in every way except for previous one off tournament wins for the golfer which is in part due to golf receiving a wider coverage base then rugby league (i can't get the pageviews link to work in this discussion, so i've linked it in the above unofficial move discussion. Guideline 2 - "long term significance" is demonstrated by him having a longer, more highly regarded career then any of the other athletes or people named "Cameron Smith". He's been the captain of his team since 2006, was the captain of his state and country. For people unfamiliar with Australian sports or rugby league he has been awarded the "MVP" of the league twice and international "MVP" and is the only player to kick 1,000 goals and highest point scorer in his sports league National Rugby League, which is the dominant sports league for the sport. As clear as his templates make his dominance in the sport visible. Compare that too Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1998) who has just started his career, who inspired this move. There's no comparison and considering the page views and long term significance to the sport of rugby league this should be the primary topic. A hatnote would fit the other league player and the golfer/American football player. GuzzyG (talk) 22:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Survey

edit
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Weak oppose: It appears that this is a request to revert a recent undiscussed move. As such, if there is a lack of consensus, the page should be moved back to Cameron Smith as proposed. However, a Pageviews analysis seems to indicate that there have been periods when the golfer was a more sought-after topic than this rugby player. I fail to appreciate the comments by the nominator saying that this shouldn't matter because golf is more popular than rugby – does that make sense? Is that a correct interpretation? This rugby player is also currently playing, so there may be some WP:RECENTISM involved in the current popularity statistics. The golfer article has fairly high page view counts – about 32,000 views last April, 13,000 views last August, and 18,000 views this April. In addition to this rugby player and the golfer, there are 6–8 other topics competing for the term "Cameron Smith" (e.g., the American football player has been getting about 800 page views per month, the curler has been getting about 400, and the other rugby player has been getting about 300), so I think this rugby player is not a proper primary topic. This topic is not "much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term" (not to mention the long-term significance question). —BarrelProof (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per detailed analysis of the issue by BarrelProof. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per long held consensus with multiple persons in the public eye with the same name, including two in the same sport.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
We would not move James Stewart for James Stewart (Australian actor), there's a difference that should be noted when a highly regarded person is being moved to accommodate a rookie. There's no Wiki guideline that says that. The fact that this Cameron Smith is the one mentioned in books on rugby league and has consistently held higher pageviews then the rookie prove that. The multiple awards and championships in the templates alone says it all. GuzzyG (talk) 09:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The idea that Cameron Smith the golfer is remotely as prominent as Cameron Smith the rugby league player is fanciful. This is one of those cases where the failure of wikipedia to go straight to the obvious primary topic is embarrassing. The proposer correctly refers to "long-term significance" as well as "page views". Even if page views were equivalent, which they clearly aren't, the rugby league player is one of the all-time greats of his sport; the golfer has achieved no such heights. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose common first name, common second name. Unknown to non rugby league fans. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, actually. With all respect to User:BarrelProof, I think the pageviews tell a pretty clear story - that the article on this rugby player is the primarytopic for "Cameron Smith". Here are three pageview charts for the several "Cameron Smith" articles:
The first chart shows that the rugby article consistently had around 2/3 of pageviews on a given day. Even accounting for that giant one-day spike for the golfer page, the rugby article still had almost 60% of pageviews. The second chart shows that is still the case post-move: the rugby article has gotten 2/3 of pageviews this past month. The third chart shows how cleanly that transition was made, and that the rugby article dominated pageviews before and after the move. All told, a large majority of our readers clearly are seeking the rugby article (much more than all the others combined), and no other "Cameron Smith" competes on long-term significance. The nom's rationale may be off track a bit, but the result is correct. The recent undiscussed move should be reverted to the previous status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Popular in pageviews, only one mentioned in academic books and only one recognized with official awards from their government. Only one that has a career more then 8 years old. Only Cameron Smith not born in the 1990s. The rest are pure recentism. GuzzyG (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussion

edit
Any additional comments:

Yes, when a completely unknown golfer reaches a high level of a normal tournament, it tends to spike the view counts in a one off oneevent kind of way because golf has a worldwide audience so when a minor golfer does good in 3/4 tournaments it can alter the views, look at his views again, they come in spikes and do not hold up to this rugby players on a continuous basis, which is what should matter, total performance weekly over years in which the rugby player wins out. How is there a question to "long term significance"? This Cameron Smith is a household name in the sport, widely regarded as one of the greatest athletes in his sport, none of the other people with this name (all athletes) are anywhere close to being prominent in their sport. They're not Kevin Martin, Jack Nicklaus, Pelé or Jim Brown. They're rookies while this player is near the end of his career in which he is highest point scorer in the whole league, so that "still competing" doesn't add up, with all but one born in the 1990s. A quick browse of the articles alone should tell you the prominence difference between this guy and the american football player. The only legitimate argument against him is that because Australia is a small country of 23 mil and the american football player comes from a country of 325 mil, but then why does he consistently have higher pageviews then everyone here? Ask any Australian on the street about who "Cameron Smith" is and noone will mention the golfer. This rugby player was the captain of the Australian rugby team. Also how is it that a 17 year old career is described "so there may be some WP:RECENTISM involved in the current popularity statistics" when it's being compared with a 6 year career? The golfer is an example of pure recentism. GuzzyG (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This guy is even mentioned in google books with some results unlike any other athlete with the name, he is cited in books on his sport. [2] GuzzyG (talk) 09:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
So Smith was just appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in the 2019 Queen's Birthday Honours for his service to rugby league. [3] surely this proves how much more notable he is to Australia more then the Australian golfer and his long term significance? We have more pageviews, clear long term significance and more mentions in books? What else am i not seeing here? @BarrelProof:, @Roman Spinner:, @Theanonymousentry: does him receiving this award, which clearly shows long term significance compared to rookies born within the 1990s, change any of your votes? Also another thing, the American football player hasn't even played a pro game yet, how does that possibly represent a conflicting case to a primary topic? That's the definition of recentism. GuzzyG (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
Just wanna point out/comment now that the "Cameron Smith" redirect that redirects to this page is now on average getting more pageviews then all the other pages, which is pretty telling. GuzzyG (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2019 (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.

Six opposed the move to this page and three supported the move to this page. Was I missing something, as that feels like the opposite of consensus, almost like we would be going against consensus.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. Including the nominator, the raw count was 4 supporting, 6 opposing. However, of course these discussions are not votes but a determination of consensus based on strength of argument, relative to applicable policies and guidelines. I feel that in my closing rationale I have outlined the reasons for my closing this as moved back to it's original title. I am happy to provide further clarification if needed. Steven Crossin 07:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

The first opposer didn't even know what sport he plays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

For me, the key point in Steven's closing rationale is that moving the article away from "Cameron Smith" required a consensus given that it had sat there since 2006. In other words, there had to be a clear consensus to "oppose" the page move back. There clearly wasn't a consensus to "support", but that doesn't mean there was a consensus to "oppose". It's not unusual for 6-4 or even 6-3 not to amount to a consensus. Anyway, we have the correct outcome now. No longer is one of the greatest rugby league players of all time sharing a disambiguation page with a run-of-the-mill (no offence intended) golfer. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, it was odd to go against the 6 to 3 consensus. I think one of the stronger points would was not contested was that there is another professional rugby league footballer with the same name, playing for a club of equal stature. The Leeds player is a first team regular, playing in key positions, playing at the biggest grounds. To me the move did not address that, but then again it seems like a surface level approach was made, with the result being it should never have been moved in the first place, with the least effort involved for the person involved in moving the page last.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
The 1983 Cameron Smith is about to become the first player to reach 400 matches of professional rugby league in Australia. He has also scored the most points in the history of Australian professional rugby league. He captained Australia, Queensland, and the most successful club team of the 21st century. I'm stunned that anyone would even consider Leeds' Cameron Smith to be of comparable significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
No-one is stating the the Leeds player is the more well known, merely that he does exist as first team regular, playing in the top-flight of Northern Hemisphere rugby league for the last four seasons. Not comparable, but you do see this happens when you have multiple professional players of the same name in the same sport, and could have even played against each other in a WCC, had the English player been selected.Theanonymousentry (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
Actually, I think the existence of another rugby league player with the same reason is a good reason not to have a disambiguation page. We'll have a large number of readers, looking for the Australian Cameron Smith, landing on a disambiguation page that lists two rugby league players and for that reason will appear rather confusing at first sight. That's not a particularly helpful outcome when we know that the vast majority of rugby league-related searches, indeed the vast majority of all searches, will be for the Australian. The much smaller number of people searching for the Leeds Cameron Smith will figure out fairly quickly that the Cameron Smith on whose page they've landed is not the one they're looking for. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
So having someone with the same name in the same sport is a reason not to have a disambiguation page. The logic is lost on me there. No-one is saying the 400 plus game former Kangaroo captain has played ten times as many games as the Leeds player, but to cite confusion at the description is weak. I think you are confusing search engines with wikipedia rules, and even then the golfer is likely to see it shifted to disambiguation, were it to be put up for a move, and with a 6 to 3 majority in favour it could move again, the only reason that it moved back being that there was insufficient discussion beforehand.Theanonymousentry (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

With respect to all those here, while the fact that this page had been at the non-disambiguated title since 2006 and the move was undiscussed was a reason to restore the article to it's original title, it was not the only reason for doing so. As I mentioned, I feel I made my closing reasons quite clear. I would argue that discussing it endlessly here would be unlikely to be beneficial. I am not above others and would not be offended if editors here wished my decision to be examined - that's what moves review is for really. Steven Crossin 13:33, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Agreed the undiscussed move was the primary reason for the return to the page since 2006, but there were other factors too. Hopefully it would not be seen as an anti-Australian bias to put the question out there and have it put to a wider discussion as to what the Cameron Smith page should be. Seems like there was appetite for it and against it, reasons for it and against it so I might look to put that in over the coming weeks. No issues with the process, as whilst the secondary factors might, or might not be good enough on their own, the lack of a discussion prior to the move was sufficient in my eyes, so a RM is the likely outcome.Theanonymousentry (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Controversy, Alex McKinnon - sanitisation!

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I’ve not looked at this page before, but it seems to me that this page has been sanitised by a fan or fans or a PR company or whatever. There’s no mention whatsoever of the Alex McKinnon episode and I cannot believe that no editor has ever put something In about that. Anyone reading the article would think that Smith is Mr Perfect, clean as a whistle, that everyone loves him. Everyone who knows a few things about the NRL is well aware that that is not true. Boscaswell talk 18:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

There's no time for that, it's more important to keep the article showing he's played 412 first grade games when he's only played 409. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.71.154 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 26 July 2021

edit
Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Cameron Smith → Cameron Smith (rugby league, born 1983) – no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC per page views [4] Joeykai (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC) Obvious primary topic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Local Potentate (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MOS:1STABBR indicates that on the first occurrence of an abbreviation it should be introduced with the full expression, ie. "National Rugby League (NRL)". Introducing a secondary link to the same target adds another MOS issue (duplink) and does not resolve the original, since readers should not have to follow links to understand abbreviations. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cameron_Smith_(rugby_league,_born_1983)&oldid=1230576320"