This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Paul Moriarty (rugby) is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. Rugby as a disambiguator does its job of directing people to the article they are looking for and not to some other person sharing the name X. Whether that person plays both rugby union and rugby league will be gleaned by looking at the article itself but is detail that does not add to clarification that the person looked for by name is the right person by that name, which is the point of such disambiguators. As I know next to nothing about Rugby am a good test case: dual code means nothing to me, as it will to the majority of people, so its use in the title is just a source of confusion except to aficionados.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the same goes for John Devereux (rugby), but it was stated that that was done as a test edit, which I thought was fair enough. Then the two guys pushing for the change claimed a ficticious consensus at this and this discussion and went about moving the others.--Jeff79 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I just noticed you moving some rugby players articles with the suffix "(rugby)" to "(rugby dual code)", I'm assuming at the request of an editor whose opinion is not agreed to by other members of wikipedia projects on rugby league and rugby union. If I could just ask you to stop for now until an agreement is reached on the wikiproject discussion pages for the two rugbys. Thanks.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. Is that going to go ahead? What can be done about it? You can see for yourself here and here that the move is not uncontroversial (as well as being poorly justified).--Jeff79 (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
It seems there is an overiding majority from different parties and at both communities that the version offered by Jeff79 is insufficient, as per the arguments set out at both communities. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
About your repeated request to move some rugby players articles with the suffix "(rugby)" to "(rugby dual code)": please note that this move is NOT decided and settled. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is all hocus-pocus. The {{move|NewName}} template wasn't added to the three Talk pages, nor were the Requested move sections created there until I did it, there were no 'Discuss' links above until I added them just now, and in any event the three pages have already been moved, apparently prompting an edit war, which is just what this Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure is intended to avoid. Best thing is for whoever closes this request to decide what to do and then to prevent further moves. Xn4 (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: I see no need for "dual code". The qualification to Paul Moriarty (that is, what's inside the brackets) isn't intended to describe the subject's whole career accurately, just to be enough to separate him from another man called Paul Moriarty. Also, the standard format is 'Paul Moriarty (politician)' or 'Paul Moriarty (architect)'; so in this case it should be Paul Moriarty (rugby footballer). Xn4 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: "(rugby)" without "footballer" is best as there are several coaches who were players and players who later become coaches, so it was decided that just listing the sport is most appropriate along with being more succinct anyway.--Jeff79 (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: Could someone please refactor this page so it is the current discussion and previous material are properly delineated? It is not clear at all where a newcomer to the discussion should place their comments - it's a mess. As for the move - blindingly obvious oppose; we choose the most simple name that is unambiguous. The current name is unambiguous, the proposed name is less simple; that's that. Knepflerle (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Support: the dual code in the title, not bothered which way round as other version to most is only referring to rugby union.Londo0622:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What a lot of hot air. Improve the article, give him an infobox, expand on his career (either code, pick your favourite). Whilst the article is in the pathetic state it's in, who cares about the disambiguator. -Sticks6615:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
