Talk:Joe Smith (pitcher)

Untitled

This page needs a lot of work; there is a lot of unsourced information as well as opinionative words ("nasty slider"), etc. Rhoffmanjr 13:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• AGREED! I did some copyediting and removed some of that, the article sounded like his mom wrote it! --eLeigh33 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I get it but his slider is indeed nasty 2600:4041:5E00:8C00:4478:B603:4347:18A8 (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How can I get a picture of him on here?

• if you have a free pic of him, just click the link on the the top of the infobox to add it --eLeigh33 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 29 October 2021

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: NOT MOVED (non-admin closure) Spekkios (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Joe Smith (pitcher) → Joe Smith (2010s pitcher) – avoid confusion with Joe Smith (1910s pitcher) Joeykai (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. Havelock Jones (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. No objection to the change in general, but I'd think Joe Smith (pitcher, born 1984) is better given that he also pitched in the 2000s (and his career is still ongoing as of now). It's sensible for the negro league player who lacks a DoB, but the standard format seems preferable here. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NCBASE and WP:PDAB. The convention for baseball players specifies that the birthdate format is only used if the decade is an insufficient disambiguation. It's also accurate to say that Smith predominantly played in the 2010s. 162 etc. (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aside from the fact that he pitched before 2010 and after 2020, 99.4% of readers landing on this title want this current major league pitcher. He averages 156 views per day compared to 1 for the stub for the other pitcher who had a total of 5 career appearances. All we need is a hatnote. Station1 (talk) 06:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  WP:PDAB only allows for partial disambiguation in the rarest circumstances. Currently, only two athletes on all of Wikipedia have their article at a partially disambiguated title. Is Joe Smith really so notable to be an exception to the rule? 162 etc. (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  There are more than two (the list at PDAB is only cricketers, and I'm not sure that's complete), but yes, they are naturally rare. It's unusual for a topic to be primary for a qualified title but not the base title, but such cases do exist, and this is certainly one of them. It's not a exception to the rule (actually a guideline at WP:INCDAB), which says "In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation." In this case, 99.4% more than meets the high threshold in my opinion. It's not a question of how notable Joe Smith is, but what's best for readers in this particular case. Station1 (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Station1's reasonings... a hat note is all that is needed for the Negro League player.. and the decade disamb is not appropriate since he did not only play in one decade... If a move is needed it should be to the birthdate. Spanneraol (talk) 13:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Joe Smith (baseball born 1984). Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Station1. I don't see any benefit moving this article to anything other than what it is now, as I hardly think the 1910s player stub is likely to be the intended destination for all but a tiny number. A hatnote would suffice. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Normally, I would agree with the "predominantly" aspect of NCBASE, but when it is a current player I can see how it can cause confusion. Both players should be dab'd in the same manner, so in this case I believe it would be best to use birth years, EXCEPT the 1910s Joe Smith's birthdate is unknown. Dab'ing by league is out; 2010s Joe pitched in both the NL & AL, so he'd have to be a MLB pitcher, but is the 1910s Joe (a Negro leaguer) not also a MLB pitcher? I looked into dab'ing the 2010s Joe as "Joe M. Smith" or "Joseph Smith," but the fella is always listed as "Joe." I could then see how the 2010s Joe could be the "primary topic" pitcher & would leave the article where it is (Joe Smiith (pitcher)), except for the fact that the other Joe in a Negro leaguer, so that leaves a bad impression. It's not unheard of to use 2 different dabs (a "1910s pitcher" & a "pitcher, born 1984"), but he played 3 years in the 2000s, 10 years in the 2010s & 1-3 years in the 2020s (he's 37 after all). This leads me right back to "2010s pitcher." Therefore, Support. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Joe Smith (pitcher, born 1984), per PDAB, would be my 2nd choice. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• Support Joe Smith (pitcher, born 1984). Incomplete disambiguation is generally deprecated and doing it by decade is terrible. Bring baseball articles in line with other articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

While bringing baseball article naming conventions in line with other sports is probably a good idea, the first step for that would be a consensus at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (baseball players). In the meantime, the existing convention at WP:NCBASE should be followed. 162 etc. (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment created a hatnote for the 1910s pitcher. Natg 19 (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Given the page views discrepancy, the current title is clearly the correct one and the hatnote is more than sufficient with no further disambiguation needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Station1 and Amakuru. A hatnote is sufficient. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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.