Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)

{{WikiProject banner shell|1=

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| algo = old(1095d)

| archive = Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)/Archive %(counter)d

| counter = 2

| maxarchivesize = 150K

| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}

| minthreadstoarchive = 1

| minthreadsleft = 3

}}

"Soccer" disambiguators

The current style of disambiguating association football players from Australia, Canada, South Africa or the United States is to use (soccer) as the disambiguator. This isn't a problem, but when additional disambiguation by nationality or birth year is needed, it results in titles like either John Doe (Australian soccer) and John Doe (soccer, born 1990). These seem very awkward, as since the disambiguators are grouped together in parentheses the reader is likely to read them as joined phrases, which then make no sense. (What is "Australian soccer", and how can soccer be born in 1990?) It would be more natural (if a bit lengthier) in these cases to use "soccer player" (class disambiguation) instead of just "soccer" (subject disambiguation). --Paul_012 (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

PS By my count, this change will affect 184 articles, a list of which follows. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

{{collapse|2=Affected articles|1=

{{flatlist|

}}

:Agree, example you've provided should find John Doe (Australian soccer player) and John Doe (soccer player, born 1990) fits better as "soccer player" would be the occupation for the sports players who play association football. And having to think about soccer being born does not make sense either. I've also found Jamie Pollock (soccer, born 1989) as an example of the article title as it is titled now where you may think soccer was born in 1989, which is nonsense. That's my view on how I see this problem. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

::I think it's fine as it is. 'Soccer player' is unnecessarily long. Also as this would affect hundreds/thousands of articles this needs to be a RFC or similar, as it would be idiotic to have non-consistent naming conventions of 'Joe Bloggs (soccer)' and 'Mark Markinson (soccer player, born 1999)'. It either needs to be just 'soccer' for all (as is the long-standing status quo) or 'soccer player' for all. Giant Snowman 18:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

:::I think "soccer, born X" is OK because the comma doesn't imply any particular grammatical relation, but "American soccer" is nonsensical to me and should be "American soccer player" instead. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

::::Another reason why we should always try and use year of birth rather than nationality as a disambiguation! Giant Snowman 19:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

:::::soccer player is better, not really sure why its just "soccer", sounds awkward.Muur (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

:::::Prioritising year of birth sounds like a bad idea to me. It's much more likely that someone will know a player's nationality than their birth year, which really should only be used as a last resort. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

::::::Year of birth is not ambiguous; nationality often is. Giant Snowman 10:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"Soccer player" seems like a generally preferable disambiguation for people who are primarily notable for playing soccer. "Joe Bloggs (soccer)" seems like an incomplete statement. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
:This is standard naming style for athletes - see e.g. Harry Bedford (rugby) or David Barnes (rugby union) or Billy Atkins (American football) etc. Are you going to add 'player' to all of those article titles - if so why, what purpose, what end? Giant Snowman 22:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
::then why are the british players not "bob bobson (football) / (association football) ? we have "bob bobson (footballer)". bob bobson (soccer player) seems like itd be the accurate comparison. "footballer" is short for "football player", yes? (and not like we can use "soccerer"....although interestingly, that word actually [https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/soccerer does exist]) also, in regards to the other sports, reads better having player on it yes.Muur (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Because the usual convention for sportspeople is that we use a single word if possible. If the occupation can be denoted with a single word (e.g. footballer, golfer, rower) then we use that, but if not we use the sport (e.g. soccer, tennis) instead of adding "player". Of course, sometimes two words are needed for the latter (e.g. rugby union, American football). Yes, it is inconsistent with our usual naming conventions (and I too initially disagreed with it for that reason), but it has become the standard and to change it would involve moving thousands of articles. Likewise, the standard has also been to use year of birth to disambiguate footballers/soccer players rather than nationality. The reason (which is actually a pretty good one) is that professional footballers often play their club football in different countries from the one they were born in. Once again, changing this would involve moving many, many articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::::Bingo - plus also 'football' is ambiguous. Giant Snowman 10:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
::::The problem is, while (soccer) alone works fine, (American soccer) causes confusion, which is the point of this discussion. I don't see why we can't have both (soccer) and (American soccer player) as disambiguators. The minor inconsistency isn't really a big deal, since there's an obvious difference in how the terms are read, and the benefit it offers is greater. I also don't see where it says that "the standard has also been to use year of birth ... rather than nationality." The guideline this talk page belongs to says, "use the most conclusive of the following steps," and lists them in order of nationality, year of birth, and position, which I read to mean that they are preferred in that order. If there's consensus otherwise, this needs to be documented. But I don't agree with it since a disambiguator is useless if it doesn't help the reader identify the target they're looking for. A player's playing in a foreign league doesn't make it any more likely for readers to know their year of birth, as opposed to where they're from. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::It doesn't actually say it anywhere. But that has definitely been the consensus at many RMs. Consensus doesn't have to be written down on Wikipedia to be consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
::::::I didn't say it needs to be written down to be consensus. I said consensus should be documented so that others can easily see what it is. Although looking at Talk:Paul Reid (footballer, born 1979)#Requested move 21 October 2021, I don't think said consensus appears to be particularly strong or established. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::::That's one debate. There have been dozens of others, most of which have succeeded without a single oppose vote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Per King of Hearts's above comments, if the comma separator is all that good, maybe the logical outcome would be to prefer (soccer, American) as the disambiguator when nationality is used. Seems very unnatural to me, but if others are okay with it I guess it's still better than the current situation. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
:(soccer, American) is definitely preferable to (American soccer) which makes no sense, but I would still prefer (American soccer player) as a more natural term. Of course, in such a case we would then need to sacrifice either consistency by having (soccer, born X) or conciseness by having (soccer player, born X) for the year disambiguator. However, IMO either way it's worth the sacrifice to prevent the unnatural-sounding (soccer, American). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
::'(soccer, American)' is worse - not natural. Giant Snowman 12:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
:::Quite. Never how we do things on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
So far, I see one person (Iggy the Swan) in support of the original proposal. King of Hearts thinks (soccer, born YYYY) is okay but (American soccer) should be changed. GiantSnowman opposes this and the original proposal as they would introduce inconsistency between (soccer) and (American soccer player). Muur and HumanBodyPiloter5 think (soccer player) should replace (soccer), even in cases without nationality or DOB disambiguation, which would be a much larger change. There's also the issue of whether there's a preference for YOB over nationality, as the guideline doesn't currently reflect consensus as claimed by User:Necrothesp.
It seems the way forward would require an RfC, to mainly determine two issues: (1) In disambiguating articles about association football players, should priority be given to (a) year of birth or (b) nationality, or (c) neither, as the default secondary disambiguator? (2) Should the primary parenthetical disambiguator for association football players from countries where the sport is known as soccer be changed from (soccer) to (soccer player) for (a) all articles where disambiguation is needed, (b) only those also disambiguated by nationality, (c) those disambiguated by nationality and year of birth, or (d) no change? I would appreciate further thoughts before proceeding. (Would also like to hear whether here or WT:WikiProject Football would be the better place to post.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with {{u|Paul_012}}'s call for an RfC on the disambiguator. I think the following options can be presented for a ranked-choice poll, if we work off the assumption that things like (English footballer) and (footballer, born 1980) are to remain unchanged (i.e. we don't go for more radical options like banning nationality entirely):

{{Ordered list

| list_style_type=upper-alpha

| (American soccer) and (soccer, born 1980)

| (soccer, American) and (soccer, born 1980)

| (American soccer player) and (soccer, born 1980)

| (American soccer player) and (soccer player, born 1980)

}}

I can't think of any other combinations which are not strictly inferior to one of these four. For example, there is never a reason to use "soccer player" for year if you don't support using it for nationality as well.

There is a separate issue regarding order of precedence between year and nationality. On this one, we need a bit more discussion before !voting, as it involves some very complex casework. As I mentioned here, suppose there are multiple British footballers called "John Smith" disambiguated by year, and only one American soccer player by that name. How should the American John Smith be disambiguated? That RfC has conclusively rejected using "soccer" alone, but there was no consensus on whether year or nationality was preferred as an additional disambiguator. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

:Option D was what I agreed on the previous week but I should think this page would be a useful place since there are plenty of page watchers who watch it every day (User:Paul_012, it is possible more users may answer there and could get stronger consensus). I definitely don't think "(soccer, American)" works either per GiantSnowman's comment a few days ago. Thanks, Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 16:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Just stumbled in here and see no real reason to change from the current format. American soccer is awkward but less so than the comma proposal above, and is certainly better than anything that adds player. Sounder Bruce 09:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguating player names by “(soccer)” looks stupid. No player is a soccer. They are soccer players, except that they are football players or footballers. In the US and Australia, no one who plays soccer seriously, or who cares about it, called it soccer, except to outsiders. Soccer is association football everywhere, soccer is jargon, Wikipedia should not use jargon, and grammar in parentheticals matters. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
:It's an established convention for brevity with sports that dont just add an -er to make a noun, e.g. (tennis) at :Category:English male tennis players, instead of being verbose and adding player to the disambiguator.—Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
:There was also a related thread above at #Sport or occupation?.—Bagumba (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
::Michael Appleton (tennis) looks dumb too. Michael Appleton is not a tennis. What’s the obsession with brevity about? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
:::It was the convention before I started here. Feel free to propose a change for all sports. —Bagumba (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
::::OK. The qualifier “(tennis)” should not be used for tennis players, instead use “(tennis player)”.
::::Similarly, footballer, football player, soccer player, association football player. Concision is good, but it just not justify wrong descriptors. “Tennis” and “soccer” do not describe a person. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::The disambiguator is not meant to be a description of the person, it is meant to indicate the field in which they are most notable. Michael Appleton (tennis) does not imply that Michael Appleton is "a tennis", it implies he is notable in the field of tennis (on the court of tennis? Idk...) – Pee Jay 09:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
::::::It is entirely correct, as SmokeyJoe points out, that for every other field we use a descriptor of what the person is rather than what field they're in, even if that descriptor is more than one word. Sportspeople are about the only exception to this rule, but it's such a long-established exception that it's probably not worth debating. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
:::::::The trouble is, sometimes you get players who end up becoming just as notable, if not more so, as coaches. Disambiguating as either "footballer" or "football manager" seems inappropriate in those situations. If there were another Johan Cruyff, for example, disambiguating his article as either Johan Cruyff (footballer) or Johan Cruyff (football manager) would seem odd. – Pee Jay 16:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Association football in US territories

Currently, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer) defines "American" as follows: "This includes the United States Virgin Islands (which uses 'soccer'), but does not include American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or Puerto Rico (which use 'football')." Is there any evidence that American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, or Puerto Rico use "football" to refer to association football in English? I can find plenty of examples to the contrary, e.g. [https://www.sanjuandailystar.com/post/at-barcelona-timing-is-everything San Juan Daily Star], [https://www.samoanews.com/sports/state-art-soccer-stadium-territory-be-built-5-million-fifa-funding Samoa News]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

:Good question, and worth investigating further. Did you look for sources that agree with the instruction? It's probably going to come down to whether one type greatly outnumber the other. "I can find a few sources that don't agree" doesn't really demonstrate anything. You can actually find a few British and Australian sources that refer to football as "soccer", too (generally in a tongue-in-cheek manner). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

::These two were just the top English-language newspapers I could find for Puerto Rico and American Samoa, respectively. I also saw them refer to American football as simply "football". -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguating with (football) for football players

Is (e.g.) Fred Warner (football) a preferable title to Fred Warner (American football)? In other words, should title modifiers avoid "American football" when the formal and common name of the sport suffices for ambiguity (i.e., does the current practice use unnecessary double disambiguation)? This is akin to avoiding (e.g.) Ben White (association football) when the simpler title of Ben White (footballer) is available. Looking at the WP:CRITERIA:

Pros: more concise, much more natural to American English speakers
Neutral: just as precise
Con: inconsistent with (e.g.) Daniel Jones (American football) (because of Daniel Jones (footballer)) (not a big deal)
Unclear: perhaps misleading/less recognizable to non-Americans? I expect this to be an objection but see naturalness under MOS:TIES as more valuable

This is related to {{u|Bagumba}}'s question five years ago about unnecessarily including nationality in titles. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)}}

::I'm confused. Are you saying that "Football" is the formal name for American football? That's what your second sentence seems to say. It doesn't seem right. Or, if it's right, it's problematic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

:::I took the word from MOS:TIES, which says {{tq|An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation}}. In American English, [https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/football football] (like [https://www.nytimes.com/topic/subject/soccer soccer]) is the formal name. In AmEng, "American football" is used almost only when needing to disambiguate from other codes. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::Ah, THAT meaning of "formal". I understand. I'm Australian, from the city where Australian rules football began. That sport is the strongest football code in Australia, but soccer is also played professionally, so similar problems to those you are addressing occur here. There is never a 100% perfect solution, but your approach seems fine. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::One difference with your proposal would be that {{section link|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer)}} advises to use "(footballer)" but footballer is not American English, so AmF players would be plain "(football)" —Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::"Footballer" is a common word in Australian English, but its meaning varies depending on location and context. In the half of the country south-west of the Barassi Line it almost always means a person who plays Australian rules football, but sometimes it means a soccer player. On the other side of that line, it's more likely to mean a soccer player, sometimes a player of Rugby League, and sometimes a player of Australian rules football. A rigid rule for the entire country would never please everyone. HiLo48 (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for the insight. I always wondered if "Australian rules footballer" could just be "Australian footballer" per MOS:TIES, but your overview says that "Australian rules footballer" would be the common term to disambiguate, even in Australia. —Bagumba (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:What is written at WP:NCGRIDIRON to use "(American football)" is both clear and (importantly) universally followed. My question before was that the text at {{section link|Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#The "sport named for a country" problem}} seems to conflict, but there was no consensus then that there was any problem. —Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::I'm not sure that consensus is a valid concept when it comes to declaring whether or not there are problems. If ANYONE is EVER confused, even momentarily, then there is a problem. I just looked up our article for the first Australian soccer player I could think of, Tim Cahill. The first thing I saw as I was typing his name in the search box was the short description, "Australian football player". But he didn't play Australian football. That's a redirect to Australian rules football. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|I'm not sure that consensus is a valid concept when it comes to declaring whether or not there are problems|q=yes}}: To be clear, I still think the wording is problematic, but there wasn't any acknowledgement that I'm not the only one (i.e. no consensus), and it wasn't something that I pursued further or escalated. I figured that people weren't confused on what to do (consistent de facto practices with AmF and CanF), in spite of the wording.—Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|...the short description, "Australian football player". But he didn't play Australian football|q=yes}}: Perhaps something to take up at WP:FOOTY about conventions for Australian soccer players to avoid ambiguity with Australian rules. —Bagumba (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::'Football' on its own is ambiguous - 'footballer' is not. Afaik, 'footballer' is used to describe association football players only (although I occasionally I see reference to a 'rugby footballer'). Giant Snowman 07:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::You must have missed my comment above, which I'll repost here for simplicity - "Footballer" is a common word in Australian English, but its meaning varies depending on location and context. In the half of the country south-west of the Barassi Line it almost always means a person who plays Australian rules football, but sometimes it means a soccer player. On the other side of that line, it's more likely to mean a soccer player, sometimes a player of Rugby League, and sometimes a player of Australian rules football. HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::Fair - which is why we have articles like George Tanner (English footballer) and George Tanner (Australian footballer), which works fine. What's the actual issue here then? Giant Snowman 09:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I cannot know from the article name what sport George Tanner (Australian footballer) plays. How about Tim Cahill? The short description of that article says he is an Australian football player. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::::You can differentiate the Australian Tanner from the English one, which is the whole purpose. Cahill is clearly wrong - so fix it. If, as I suspect, you want to change how we disambiguate, you are trying to implement something which would not be practical and is not needed. Giant Snowman 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm not sure what it is you think I want to implement. I'm not sure myself. I tend to join these discussions to try to correct the seemingly inevitable false claims a lot of people seem to make. How is the Cahill description wrong? He is Australian, and he played a sport called football by a lot of people. Should it say "Australian soccer player"? I can assure you that would upset some soccer fans. HiLo48 (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::Do Australians tend to use "soccer" or "football" for association football, or is it interchangeable? MOS:TIES is the guideline, not non-Australians getting upset.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::I left this question sitting there for a few hours before trying to accurately answer it. As I hinted at in my earlier comment, it's complicated, and a very sensitive issue for some. A good place to start is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). It's a straightforward article, and short. Its Talk page, however, is not short. If you have a couple of weeks to spare, have a read. Barassi Line also has some valuable information, explaining that there is a distinct geographical divide between Australians who primarily follow Australian rules football and those who mainly follow rugby league. Rugby union and soccer are in there too. As for your specific question re soccer vs football, it varies with geography, with background, and with commercial interests. Those that don't call themselves football clubs tend to be in places where, when soccer began to be played there, there was already a club called a "Football Club" playing Australian football. The national association for association football formally changed to "football" twenty years ago. A lot of clubs, but not all, now call themselves football clubs. I could write thousands of words on this, but won't unless pressed. Happy to answer questions. Good luck getting your head around it. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::::::::Thanks. I don't edit much in footy or Aus rules (perhaps some AmF players who came from Aus), but I don't think I've seen that page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople). Is it really a community guideline (I haven't gone through the history)?—Bagumba (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Yes. It's quite consistently applied. Though not universally accepted. Every few months someone attempts to restart the argument. HiLo48 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

::::::::WP:CONCISE assumes you know you're looking for someone who plays an Australian code of football: {{tq2|The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area.}} Presumably, the exact sport is not needed in the title.—Bagumba (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Overprecision

WP:OVERPRECISION implies that Jaime Moreno (footballer, born 1995) and Jaime Moreno (footballer, born 1974) ought to be renamed as Jaime Moreno (born 1995) and Jaime Moreno (born 1974) since both persons are footballers and there are no other notable persons named Jaime Moreno. I just want check if WP:NCSP needs modification to comply with the broader WP:NC or if this particular aspect can be left implicit. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NCPDAB, use of only birth years as a qualifier should be avoided. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
:It seems this issue needs fixing at NCP first: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(people)#Edit_request_in_NCPDAB_(overprecision). So, let's pause the present discussion while the NCP issue is decided. fgnievinski (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Footballers

I suggest that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANaming_conventions_%28sportspeople%29&diff=1267377656&oldid=1262072992 this edit] is restored, i.e. a simple swap of the order of the 'year of birth' and 'nationality' disambiguators. Whilst the current order is not an order of preference (and indeed neither will any new order), it is often interpreted as that by inexperienced editors - and given that YOB remains the massively preferred primary disambiguation for footballers, moving it to the top will help deal with any confusion. Giant Snowman 14:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:Support. As long as this clarified things for all editors, I got no problems. Reader of Information (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:Comment. Personally, I don't think that changing the order of the three alternatives in section 2 is likely to help the inexperienced editor to avoid thinking the order is important: the opposite, if anything. What might do it is bolding the "most conclusive" bit, so

::{{tq|2. If there are multiple association footballers with the same name, use the most conclusive of the following steps:}}

:::{{tq|a. if the footballers ...}}

:to highlight the fact that we're supposed to choose what works best as a disambiguator in each individual case, and not just choose the top one in the list. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::I would also be OK with that, perhaps in conjunction with the change in order. Giant Snowman 15:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::Well most conclusive is ambiguous. I would prefer use the most disambiguous of the following steps: Reader of Information (talk) 15:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

:::That should be 'most unambiguous' - but think I prefer Struway's suggestion. Giant Snowman 15:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

::::most unambiguous would work too Reader of Information (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)