The following discussion 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.

Per the close of Talk:Ninja (video game player)#Requested move 12 January 2020, the fact that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#People says that the disambiguators "(gamer)" or "(video game player)" can be used in titles to describe a person who plays video games professionally is problematic seems evident. So ... which disambiguator should be stated in the aforementioned guideline? ...Since apparently, only one can prevail. Steel1943 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging participants in the move discussion (who are not currently blocked) who have yet to participate in this discussion to hopefully garner more participation in this RfC: Gaioa, Gonnym, Red Slash, Zxcvbnm, Ortizesp, Maherhimri, Tbhotch, Xezbeth, Joel B. Lewis, Þjarkur, IJBall, Spy-cicle, Brojam, Dekimasu, and Sergecross73.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Spy-cicle, I just saw your comment below. I can't revert the ping, but I'll strike out your name as proof that I messed up and acknowledged it. Steel1943 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (gamer) only - while it is theoretically possible that an overlap in article naming could occur between a video gamer and, say, a board gamer... I feel like that is an exceptionally rare occurrence. To be WP:CONSISTENT, we should choose one method rather than keeping both. Using the term (gamer) meets more WP:CRITERIA, especially conciseness, -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player). Wikipedia is for a general audience. I will concede that actual enthusiastic video game players may prefer "gamer" but other people may find that term a bit confusing. I find it confusing, and I have been an occasional video game player since the days of Pong and Asteroids back in the 1970s. To me, "gamer" can mean a gambler or small time con artist, or an athlete who goes all out with their efforts, or a player of board games . . . or a video game player. We should use terminology that reduces ambiguity rather than increasing it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player) or if they are a profession esports player (esports player). "Gamer" is just too general and slangy for a general audio, and either of these terms are less likely to cause any confusion with the general reader while still remaining accurate. --Masem (t) 01:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We should shoot for one and only one disambiguation here. "esports player" is too specific and requires a bit of specialist knowledge that we should avoid encoding into our article titles. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We should go with the specific game over the generic "esports player" if we did that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Respondents to this RFC should review the previous RFC which instated the current text; see WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 117#Disambiguation. --Izno (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player) per my old comments and others here. Maximizes precision. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maximizing precision is exactly what WP:PRECISION says not to do: titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Note also that the goal to "unambiguously define" applies to the title in whole, not independently to the disambiguator itself. If there are ten John Does and only one is a gamer, then (gamer) alone as disambiguator meets WP:PRECISION; (video game player) violates it because it makes the title John Doe (video game player) "more precise than" what is required to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", which John Doe (gamer) accomplishes, and WP:CONCISEly. --В²C ☎ 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player) to lessen the ambiguities. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed vote to (gamer) as per the reasonings by Born2cycle and Spy-cicle. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player), for WP:PRECISION. Video game streamers and let's players, esports players, video game record holders and others can all be identified by this disambiguator. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to "(gamer)" (see below). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it should be pointed out that "video game player" is a redirect that points to the main article "gamer". If that term is fine for the main article title, its fine for the disambiguator. -- Netoholic @ 10:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, gamer starts off with: "A gamer (sometimes also called player or electronic athlete and eathlete) is a person who plays interactive games, especially video games, tabletop role-playing games, and skill-based card games, and who plays for usually long periods of time". We're making the distinction for players of video games; players of tabletop role-playing games and and skill-based card games are thus excluded. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:25, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. If someone is confused what the "(gamer)" covers,t hey can just look up gamer and know. This naming convention can point to gamer and instruct people to use (gamer) as a disambiguator to anyone that falls in that article description. Any article that uses (gamer) would likewise use a gamer link in the lead sentence. Why is this naming convention trying to invent a new definition to justify using a phrase for which we already have an existing article? Yes, "gamer" is a broader term in that it can cover more than video gamers, but it doesn't logically follow that we must use a more specific term in this case. Even the encyclopedia itself doesn't make that distinction by having separate articles. It is EXTREMELY unlikely we'll run across two gamers with the same name but who play in different categories of games. -- Netoholic @ 20:26, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, many participants here believe disambiguators are supposed to be unambiguous in and of themselves. I'm baffled as to why they believe this. I'm not aware of any other disambiguators subject to absolute general precision like that. In fact, I can only think of ambiguous disambiguators, like "actor", as in Seán Barrett (actor), not Seán Barrett (English actor born in 1940), for example. --В²C ☎ 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Either per WP:CREEP. I don't see why we only need one. In fact, whichever one an article uses, there should be a redirect from the other as ((R from alternative disambiguation)). I like (gamer) since it's WP:CONCISE, but (video game player) is more specific and recognizable. I think this is better as a case-by-case determination rather than a general rule. If the subject's name is long, we would want a concise disambiguator. If the topic's not clear, we would want a more precise disambiguator like (video game player). This doesn't strike me as one-size-fits-all and I don't think it has to be. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, with the way that the move discussion I linked in my opening statement went, I really don't think that is going to fly anymore. Declaring one over the other will have the end result of preventing having to "reinvent the wheel" and making it clearer what should be done so that there isn't a need to have a rather long and controversial debate again. Declaring one over the other saves editors' time and energy. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I'm just out of touch then. I'm fine with either, but if we're going to have guidance, I would prefer the guidance be "should" rather than "must". — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Wugapodes: I totally understand what you mean. I mean, anyone can invoke WP:IAR when it is for the better of the encyclopedia. I know I'm not afraid to do so if necessary. Steel1943 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why not both? We can prefer (gamer) where it's sufficient as disambiguator, and use (video game player) where the additional precision is necessary. I mean, that's how we manage with every other disambiguator on WP. Not sure why so many seem to think this one has to be an exception. --В²C ☎ 17:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • ...Because of the exact reason I stated below for why I believe "(video game player)" should now be the choice of the two. (In all honesty, I think the section at WP:NCSPVG may need to be moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) and then create a new section on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games) for other types of people related to video games that are not professional video game players, but that's a discussion for another day.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please explain how Video game player being merged into Gamer, or "video game player" being a subtopic of Gamer, precludes us from using (gamer) as disambiguator in any situation where none of the other uses are gamers of any kind. Surely you're not also buying into this argument that suddenly disambiguators have to be generally precise all on their own, independent of the particular titles being disambiguated? If so, then we have to change almost every parenthetically disambiguated title on WP. --В²C ☎ 19:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • I apologize, but my below comment, my proposal, and my participation this far contain all I care to add to or participate in this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • I respect your right to leave me, for one, baffled by your reasoning, though I am disappointed in your apparent unwillingness or inability explain. --В²C ☎ 16:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player), which is ironically contrary to my vote in the move request I posted in my opening statement. After discovering that Video game player was merged into Gamer on 16 January 2006, as well as realizing that "video game player" is a subtopic of the article Gamer in its current state, I am now convinced this is the right path to take. Steel1943 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning (video game player) for consistency and less ambiguity and better recognition for general readers. Previously, I considered either case, but I guess practice shows that "gamer" has the issue of being a jargon/technical term. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still leaning "video game player" looking at below arguments, but for consistency I would support any outcome if the decision is on the fence, as long as there is an outcome that standardized this. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (gamer) per WP:CONCISE in all cases except where that's ambiguous. Only when another use of the title in question is also a "gamer" of some kind should the more precise (video game player) be used. The idea of using such a long and unwieldy disambiguator when totally unnecessary is unprecedented. Consider that we use "(actor)" and not, say "(British actor)", unless there are two actors with the same name. The same principle applies here. --В²C ☎ 17:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, its almost like someone insisting we must use (stage actor) rather than (actor), simply because they want to distinguish them as a category from (film actor)s. -- Netoholic @ 21:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (gamer). I too was in favor of "(video game player)", but Born2cycle has convinced me otherwise. Maybe 'gamer' in a not too distant past was slang, but if mainstream reliable sources are using the term, it's time Wikipedia should do so too. If mainstream media outlets are using 'gamer', then it is safe to assume the general reader of Wikipedia is too. Initially I went for WP:PRECISE, saying that other players of video games, etc., can also be called "video game player", but they just as easily can be called 'gamer'. And it is more WP:CONCISE. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (gamer) per conciseness and naturalness with no downsides. It is more concise as it uses the one-word "gamer" as opposed to the clunky three words "video game player". It also more easily fits the naturalness criteria (The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English). As seen on this Google Trends ([1]) comparison with "Ninja gamer" having significantly higher interest than "Ninja video game player".

Just to break down some of the previous arguments to prevent this discussion from going round in circles:

• "gamer" is too informal
• Neither the Cambridge Dictionary [2] or Merriam-Webster [3] note the word "gamer" as informal (in addition to the Collins dictionary [4]). Additionally, general audience RSs have been using "gamer" for a while take for instance:

1. BBC News (since 2004 [5], [6], [7], [8], [9])
2. The New York Times (since 2005 [10], [11], [12], [13], [14])
3. The Daily Telegraph (Since 2003 [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21])
4. The Guardian (Since 2001 [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30])
5. Fox News (Since 2004 [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36])
6. CNN (Since 2001 [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46])
7. The Independent (Since 2005 [47], [48], [49], [50], [51])
8. The Hollywood Reporter (Since 2006 [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57])
9. The Economist (Since 2005 [58], [59], [60], [61])
10. The Times ([62], [63], [64])

• This widespread usage of in mainstream non-specialist RSs (i.e. not IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc.) in addition to the dictionary sources conclusively proves that it is not informal.
• "gamer" is too specialist/JARGONy
• As seen above, its widespread usage of in mainstream non-specialist RSs (i.e. not IGN, GameSpot, Eurogamer, etc.) also shows that it is not specialist jargon/language.
• "gamer" is not precise enough
• WP:PRECISION does not really in this situation here is what it says: Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. Let's take the example of Ninja (video game player). The disambiguator "video game player" is needed here as it differentiates it from the noun and its other uses. "Ninja (gamer)" could also be used here because there is no other board "gamer"/role-playing "gamer" called "Ninja". But even if there was we could differentiate based on nationality (e.g. Ninja (American gamer); Ninja (British gamer)) which would result in it being more concise. In a very rare situation where two gamers (one who plays board games and one who plays video games AND have the same nationality) a IAR situation would make sense to have use "(video game player)" and "(board game player)" in order to differentiate the two.

I urge the closer to consider the weight of each argument as opposed to a vote. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (gamer) First of all, "video game player" could easily refer to an inanimate object such as a console that plays video games. It's awkward and long. "Gamer" is shorter, which is what WP:CONCISE is all about. It's as simple as it gets - someone who plays video games._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (video game player) as the best balance of WP:PRECISE with WP:CONCISE. "(gamer)" is not precise enough. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Et tu, IJBall? Can you identify any other situation anywhere on WP where PRECISE applies to the disambiguator alone? As you well know, it’s the combination of the topic name and disambiguator together — the title — that needs to meet PRECISE. Why are you (and others) applying title criteria to just the disambiguator portion of a title? That’s unprecedented. There is no basis for such reasoning, not in policy, guidance nor in practice. And for good reason. Please reconsider. —В²C ☎ 07:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (gamer), I guess. User:Born2cycle makes a fair point. Gamer means both "video game player" specifically, but -- if you consider that too technical -- also means "game player" generally, of which video game players are a natural subset. So we'd only need more info if there was a video game player and, say, a poker player of the same name, I guess. I disagree with Born2cycle often enough, but its not like conciseness doesn't matter, this is one case where using one word instead of three is what we want. Herostratus (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (gamer), per WP:CONCISE. In contemporary English, it is more than precise enough. People like card players are not called "gamers" (even if within the gambling industry the industry calls itself "gaming", a usage that the common people do not engage in, much as within the pool/billiards industry, manufacturers and tournament organizers like to refer to pool as "pocket billiards", which no one else does (including players), except as a joke.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  PS: A compromise position would be (video gamer) (which is WP:CONSISTENT with Video game, so don't use a hyphenated or fully compounded spelling). It's not the most concise choice, but it isn't ridiculously excessive like "(video game player)", and it's also more precise, though this level of precision is not actually necessary (15 years ago, maybe, but not now). I would consider this compromise approach my second choice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamer is neither informal nor slang, nor is too vague as disambiguator

• Regarding the argument that gamer is too "informal", that ship has sailed. It is common usage in reliable sources like the NY Times, LA Times, BBC, WaPo, etc. etc. I know many here are trying to move away from language they believe is slang, but since it is widely used by reliable sources the argument that it is “slang” doesn’t sound like following usage in reliable sources. It’s bordering on violating WP:NPOV. We should not be trying to influence usage; we are supposed to be following common usage.
• As to it being "too vague", that's not a requirement of a disambiguator. The logic in the argument that we can't use "gamer" as a disambiguator because "gamer" is ambiguous means we can't use "singer", "politician", "album", "writer" or "footballer" as disambiguators either, because they too are "vaugue". That of course is not the case. Yes, a "gamer" can be a "video game gamer" or a "role-playing game gamer"... so what? A singer can be a rock singer or an opera singer. An album can be a country album or a photo album. A writer can be a novel writer, a science writer, a journalist or a playwright. A footballer can be an "Australian rules footballer" or an "association footballer" or "American footballer". Yet we use all of these "vague" terms as disambiguators all the time. The only requirement is to distinguish from other uses of the same name, which gamer does as long as the other uses are not gamers (of any kind). Why the insistence that this term cannot be a disambiguator due to its ambiguity when we're perfectly fine with using countless other ambiguous terms as disambiguators? It makes no sense, and I hope the closer of this RFC discounts !votes based on this argument accordingly. —В²C ☎ 17:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• To add another aspect here: of recent years, the term "gamer" specifically as applied to video games from people involved with the media but not with video games has negative connotations due to the fact of things like Gamergate controversy, swatting, etc. It is a stereotype, and not so much a professor or the like. Yes, there are many segments of English-speaking society that do not see it that way, but there remains a significant fraction that do, and it is one of those things we should avoid ourselves. "Video game player" as a phrase may carry the stereotypical picture of what a gamer may be pictured as, but its not the wording, just the activity, whereas "gamer" is a specific wording that is a potential problem. --Masem (t) 22:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. But isn't it a violation of NPOV to reflect a concern we perceive that is generally not reflected in reliable source usage? I mean, if the NYT, the BBC, CNN, The Economist, Fox News, etc. are all good with using gamer, who are we to say it's problematic? —В²C ☎ 03:54, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who are we to say it's not problematic? Cf. the "'gamer' is a slur" meme. I think usage in mainstream media sources is being overrated in importance/relevance to this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? Usage in reliable sources (which includes mainstream media sources) is the gold standard in title decision making, from WP:COMMONNAME determination to deciding on a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But with regard to deciding whether gamer is a slur (never mind it's the long-standing title of the WP article on the topic), we're supposed to dismiss the gold standard? Trumped by a meme used in social media??? How does that make sense? It's acceptable as an article title but not as a disambiguator? The machinations people will go through to rationalize their JDLI opinions apparently knows no bounds. --В²C ☎ 15:58, 11 March 2020 (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.