The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. Kipling would have been surprised to find he'd written a franchise. He wrote a follow-up volume, at least one other story, & re-mixed compilations. The current title is not clear enough, but the nom seems somewhat wide of the mark. Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's mixing the books in with the subsequent movies, video games, etc. of the same name, which is not exactly a natural collection, apart from the fact that they are all "based on" (and I use the term loosely) the original work. It's not the nomination that is wide of the mark, it's the existence of the category in the first place. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Sorry, but I don't understand your original point, I guess. I've never suggested that it be deleted, just renamed. I thought you were implying it's a dubious category and should maybe be deleted. Or are you saying it should be Category:The Jungle Book (franchise) because The Jungle Book is about the original book? I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 08:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep for now, without prejudice to future nominations for rename (or deletion if it turns out to be a bad idea in practice). I note that at this stage the category is uncategorized. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created today by User:Apoc2400 as something that he considers "usefull". IMHO all categories he has tagged are part of a relevant category tree already, and I see no practical purpose in the creation of this category. Debresser (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created it because it think it would be useful for category intersection searches like this. It would help deletion sorting --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to me to be a rather good idea, although the name might be better. I can't thing of a better name right now, but this one seems both too verbose and too similar to Articles for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the whole point of this category is to include AfDs, PRODs and Speedies in one category. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to break these out. Keeping all of the deleted things in one category should be fine. No need to add extra layers. Category:Articles for deletion is already the umbrella category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could add PRODs and speedies there. Although they are not really for discussion. This problem is caused by one of the renames of WAS (if anybody remembers him). Debresser (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This discussion seeks to judge an idea prematurely. Give it time and see if it works. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename to allow editors to identify all articles targeted for deletion in a straightforward manner. Alansohn (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - consistancy with other sports.GordyB (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me this is the only compelling reason to re-name. However consistency with what? Rugby union's categorisation only? Or across the board? For that we'd have to rename others like Category:English footballers and Category:Gaelic footballers as well. You can be sure that athletes in these categories would be widely referred to as 'players' too. Where do we draw the line?--Jeff79 (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a general move towards categories being named in a consistant way across Wikipedia and it makes (to me) to use the more general "player" which can be used with most sports (if not all) rather than footballer which is specific to a few and as I'm told not used in American English. Though I agree with the points further down that "footballer" is not an archaic term and not restricted to Australia. It is just that the British media prefers not to use the term to avoid confusion with soccer. Rugby league media in the UK certainly does talk about "football" and "footballer".GordyB (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that nomination discussion ended with two for naming the subcategories footballer and three opposed. There was no consensus to change the status quo at that time but it was not a strong enough result to decide this discussion in my opinion. LunarLander//talk// 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Rugby league football is one of many codes of football and the people who participate may be correctly categorised as footballers. In Australia which is currently (though hopefully not for too long!) at the forefront of the sport, the game is pre-eminent in its heartlands, the terms football and footballer are in common usage. Those terms are also in heavy usage among those in the professional game in the UK, especially coaches - those who most commonly appear in by the media and so perpetuate the term. I would also add that a common name the sport, 'rugby league', can be an ambiguous term for those unfamiliar with the it and the word 'footballer' I think is more useful in highlighting that this is a sport rather than a rugby competition. LunarLander//talk// 20:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply LunarLander's assertions didn't tally with my own (very limited) knowledge of the terminology, so I did some checking. Here's the figures, all linked to the searches so that you can check them out for yourself:
It seems to me that "rugby league footballer" is even less common as a term in Australia than it is in the UK. So I checked out the terminology on a few UK news websites:
... so every search I tried shows "player" coming out a long way in the lead as the preferred term. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I think it is probably impossible to use ghits to provide an answer to this particular question (and I should note that the level of coverage given to the sport by the UK print media is not exactly extensive). Rugby league is a sport with various terms used in several places so it's a bit hard to pin down these things properly.
I also think the terms you have searched for don't well reflect how rugby league would be written about. There aren't too many situations I can imagine a long-form "rugby league footballer" being used when "footballer" or, yes, "player" would do - the sport wouldn't need to be referenced again after the title or section name, for example.
Looking at Australia in particular, the terms "NRL", "rugby league", "league", "football", "rugby" might be used when referring to the sport or the main competition within it.
Here are some other google hit stats with an alternative choice of terms used but, as I've noted, I don't think you can put any particular trust in them:
Unfortunately, perhaps as someone that isn't a rugby league fan you might not have been exposed to televised match commentary and the associated analysis and interviews meaning you can't gain a full appreciation of the prevalence of terms, and unfortunately these aren't as readily pulled up as Google hits. LunarLander//talk// 23:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several points here. First, it's not a good idea to base theze decisions on anyone's personal impressions; it's better to use verifiable sources. Secondly, you're right that UK print media don't give much coverage to rugby league, and that's why I didn't just use the national media, I looked at the Manchester Evening News. It's coverage of RL appears to exceed the combined total of the national broadsheets, which is unsurprising since its distribution area includes some of rugby league's Pennines heartland. And the results from there are all for "players" rather than "footballers". Thirdly, your searches all show more hits for "players" than for "footballers", except for the search which looks for two words rather than the phrase (and even it shows only a small majority for footballers). Those results could be misleading, because there's no guarantee that the word "footballers" relates to NRL; it could be picking up sports roundup article in which the term "footballers" refers to other sports. That's why I searched for phrases, and why I think that your searches for phrases are more meaningful. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It's preferable to use verifiable sources but I (and nobody else in this discussion) has access to the BBC or Sky archives. Someone's impression might not be ideal but it isn't right to rule out broadcast media. On searches, yes phrases are more accurate but only in relation to that phrase, not overall usage of the term we are interested in. Here are some sources with footballers used. They prove at a minimum that the term is in use today by commentators, coaches and others: UK media - 9th July 2009 - Rhinos to rampage on - SkySports.com UK media - 28th August 2007 - Fred Hopkin - J Bruce Ismay - Liverpool Echo (a city with two Premier League teams) UK media - 9th January 2009 - Dancing On Ice: Ellery Hanley - Top 10 facts you need to know about the former rugby player - The Mirror UK media - 22nd June 1998 - Brassed off but still unbowed - The Independent (Arts section) UK club - Current page in community section - RL Key Skills - Wakefield Wildcats UK company - 11th May 2009 - Sports bar manufacturer in Super Sponsorship with Rooney - Focused Nutrition UK club - 22nd August 2009 - Whitehead commits to Bulls - Super League Quote from Steve McNamara UK media - Jim Challinor - Liverpool Echo UK media - Len Killeen & Doug Laughton - Liverpool Echo UK company (Alibris) - Book about the State of Origin with a synopsis saying "footballers" - Alibris UKLunarLander//talk// 16:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't think there is any dispute that the term is in use. However, the issue is prevalence. The Daily Mirror story to which you linked is an interesting example. The headline says "rugby player" and the body of the article uses "rugby league footballer" once and "rugby league player" once. Just looking for single words, "footballer" appears once, but "player" or "player" appears 6 times. Looks to me like the mirror pefers "player". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The nominator's rationale in the rugby union discussion was that 'footballer' was an archaic term in rugby union, please justify why you think it is archaic in the sport of rugby league. Rugby union generally makes a big thing of calling itself just 'rugby', whereas rugby league uses several names and the use of 'football' and 'footballer' is contemporary and higher. LunarLander//talk// 00:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Naturally people don't refer to them as "rugby league footballers" or "NRL footballers" because they are already writing/speaking in the context of the sport and refer to them simply as "footballers". I'm not sure if there's a way to search google results for "footballer" within a rugby league context or not. But here is a small sample of the multitude of occurences of the use of "footballer" in reference to rugby league players in written media. In addition to this you will hear the term spoken by commentators in any given match broadcast or television/radio talk show. This is because (in Australia at least) rugby league became the predominant meaning of the word 'football', just as soccer did in England and American football did in the US. Certainly 'player' is common, but so too is 'footballer'. I support retaining use of "footballer" as not only is it in common, widespread usage, but it communicates more than "player". The rugby union wikipedians seemed to agree the term was archaic for their sport. However that is simply not the case for this one.--Jeff79 (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename. It's fairly evident to me after reading this conversation that "footballer" is exclusively an Australian term for rugby league player. Since this is an international encyclopedia and the categories cover players in places other than Australia, it makes sense to rename to a more generic and commonly used term. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No, I don't think it is limited to Austrlia considering there is a book called Billy Boston: Rugby League Footballer that was published by London League Publications Ltd released on 27 August 2009--sss333 (talk) 07:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Footballer" is neither exclusively Australian, nor is it only used for rugby league players. See the examples provided above. Australian rules football players are also referred to as footballers in Australia. As are Gaelic footballers and soccer players in their respective countries (and their categories have been allowed to reflect this).--Jeff79 (talk) 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've both misinterpreted what I've said, probably because I didn't express myself clearly. Let me clarify: it appears to me that only Australians use "footballer" as the preferred form of a rugby league player. (It's not even clear to me if it's the preferred form in Australia, though because I don't care to argue about it I could concede that it may well be.) This is nothing to do with what other sports use. Anyone can cherry pick a usage or two from any country, but that's kind of irrelevant. What is important is which form is dominant worldwide. The ghits are fairly conclusive in this regard, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do some usages count for more than others? For example, the Australian Dictionary of Biography chooses to use the term "rugby league footballer" (probably because it is more intrinsically accurate and informative than "player"). An example was provided above where the term was preferred for the title of a published book. And here a medical journal. Personally I agree with them and think Wikipedia should do the same as it is after all an encyclopedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my opinion. Anyone can find individual examples of the usage they prefer, and there's no reason they should carry more weight. That's why I support the more generic usage—it seems to have a much wider usage. It's predicable that Australian users would disagree, since it's not what they're used to, but it seems to be a mostly regional term, at best. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying that the Australian Online Dictionary of Biography's wording should be preferred because it's Australian, but rather because it is more encyclopedic than others. And the other two examples (found in only a matter of minutes) I mentioned are neither Australian nor specialised (their intended audience being people interested in British rugby league or medical professionals worldwide). I'm trying to illustrate that common usage should not be the be all and end all for deciding terminology on wikipedia, just as it isn't for any other reliable encyclopedia or reputable publication. "Rugby league footballer" is to "rugby league player" what "Avian influenza" is to "bird flu".--Jeff79 (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:COMMONNAME is a policy on naming articles. This is a discussion about category naming, please link to any sections in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) or related conventions that deal with common names for categories. You are making out that footballer isn't a common name, it is common enough to satisfy the naming of a category. LunarLander//talk// 15:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME states: Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. After dealing with search engine results it goes on to say: It may also be useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals. It is for this reason that the "bird flu" (3.6M ghits) article is entitled "Avian influenza" (1.7M ghits).--Jeff79 (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Isn't that the bone of contention though? Neither term is significantly prevalent to the other, indeed both are used interchangeably seemingly without any criteria. I'm not totally sure, but I'm willing to bet if I used my student Athens account on Web of Science, I wouldn't find many scientific studies in journals on rugby league, definitely not any consensus on whether 'player' or 'footballer' should be used. In my opinion, there is no evidence to suggest the category needs changing, and no consensus on what to change the category to. Unless it's to maintain consistency throughout the encyclopaedia, I say leave it alone. GW(talk) 22:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sportspeople are generally referred to as 'players' - I agree. I agree that all rugby league categories should use the same term. I also follow the recent trend towards standardising categories on Wikipedia, so I fully support your agenda. GW(talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ...but the question above is still pertinent. For this to be worthwhile to Wikipedia, this needs to be done with all codes of football. GW(talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also raises the question: Is this decision going to affect other football codes just as the rugby union one is doing now? Should other wikiprojects be notified?--Jeff79 (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A rugby league player is not what is intended here. People central to participation in rugby league are the footballers. This is not about the language of a specific country where rugby is common, but about halting the assumption that the vernacular of the project's host country is the standard for the language. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe, two questions for you. Take a look at the table above. Which of those news organisations is based in wikipedia's host country? (Answer: none). And which of them is based in the country where rugby league originated? (Answer: all of them). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, the tables above had me a perplexed. I guess that ghits is not a good way to measure things. Another thing is that amongst rugby fans, where the people on the field playing rugby are footballers, no one says the string "rugby league footballer". I guess that means that there is a different usage prevalence inside to outside. Probably the newspapers prefer the outside usages, probably due to journalists not being footballers. Also, I definately feel that newspapers have been becoming internationalised for decades. Admittedly, this is not an earth shattering matter, but football players are footballers (whether rugby, union, soccer or other codes), and I'd prefer wikipedia to use language reflective of the locality of the subject being covered. Converting the language from footballers to players feels like a dumbing down of the language, similar to conversion of instances of "lawyer" to "legal company employee". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But, Joe, we're not on the playing field. We're sitting on chairs writing about things, just like the journalists who write for the newspapers, and their usage is verifiable. As to locality, I doubt we are going to get a more local source for rugby league than the Manchester Evening News. Some of the Yorkshire media would be as good, but that's the heartland of RL in England. It's not wikipedia's job to either lead or resist internationalisation of language, and all but one of the search links posted here shows "player" coming out as the more prevalent written usage. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right, but I don't want to agree with you. I want fencing to have fencers, rugby to have footballers, boxing to have fighters; birds to have flocks, fish to have schools. Players are, perhaps you'll agree, for armchair activities like cards and chess. In the end, I'm sure you'll look right, because the article writers will be influenced by the category names, and the journalists by the articles (you do know that common journalists seem to be beggining, and even ending, their research with wikipedia). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why more weight is given (and rightly so) to certain publications' usage when deciding terminology on Wikipedia, as per Avian influenza. The point made about dumbing down of language is spot on.--Jeff79 (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Players" should always be the default for when the sport name precedes a collective noun.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then there's work to be done at Category:Golfers and Category:footballers.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Golfers" is fine. What I said was "when the sport name precedes a collective noun." Here the sport name is "rugby league," so the word following that—just as it is with "basketball," "baseball," "hockey," and now "rugby union"—should be "players."--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the sport is "rugby league football" and used in official documents: see page 8: 3 (ii). Consequently, the collective noun is not preceded by the sport's name. LunarLander//talk// 21:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, the name of soccer is "association football." In common parlance, it's "rugby league."--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Uh, yeah, I know. My point was that we would never create "Canadian association football players," so the "fully spelled out name" argument doesn't hold water with me. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
So you're changing your rule? I'm not sure getting into a debate on names for association football will help us considering the number of them had on WP and their length! LunarLander//talk// 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem bent on twisting my words, I'll simply let my previous comment stand. Thanks for your opinion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We'll leave it there then, I just don't think your argument stands up. LunarLander//talk// 03:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They call themselves (rugby league) footballers; they may play the game of rugby league, but footballer is a more precise term than player, and the correct terminology in both hemispheres I believe. Huey Newton and the News 07:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huey Newton and the News (talk • contribs)
Support - "rugby league player" is clearly the more prevalent term. – PeeJay 12:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As is "bird flu" (see ghits above). Decisions for terminology on Wikipedia are not (and should not) be determined purely mathematically.--Jeff79 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the supporters of the term "footballer" have been rather short of references to support that. One example you cited above was the Australian Dictionary of National Biography, but the link you provided is a general search, so I checked this one myself: 67 uses of "rugby league player", but only 9 uses of "rugby league footballer". You said above that the ADNB's wording should be preferred "because it is more encyclopedic". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've done your search using the string "rugby league x" again without accounting for different usage patterns for footballer. You've also, again, glossed over the points made that you are relying on just one medium for all of your stats (and then only conducting a limited investigation of it). You haven't addressed the appropriateness of the names beyond ghits and someone else (I think) summarily dismissed Australia as relevant. LunarLander//talk// 00:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some other methodology for checking usage in the ADNB, then let's see the data. But so far you seem ready to denounce any data which anyone else comes up with, yet all you can offer is a few individual examples of usage (which don't demonstrate any pattern), and an unverified insistence that one term is "correct". I don't have any particular personal preference in this, so I'm open to changing my mind, but I'm not going to be persuaded just by this curious combination of assertion and denunciation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did make the nomination, and I'm happy that the evidence stands up. I'm afraid that you are still doing what you have been doing all along: taking a few examples of the usage you like, making no equivalent checks for contrary examples, and then claiming that this proves your case. It doesn't: all it proves is that a particular construct was used, but it shows nothing about the relative prominence of the the two terms. Your latest set of links is more of the same sort of half-logic: all you have proven is that sometimes the ADNB calls these people "footballers". Very good, but that has never been in dispute. However, you seem oblivious to the fact Burge and Connell were included in the list of results I posted; you say that "the results weren't informative enough to take account of the following". That's false: they were included. You also ignore the fcat that the term "footballer" was used in the other cases without mentioning the sport. Unless you are proposing that Category:Rugby league footballers be renamed to Category:Footballers, that's irrelevant. You ave also included in your list the likes of Messenger, Herbert Henry, who played both rugby codes, requiring a different phraseology. So far as I can see you latest set of links shows nothing at all beyond what you have repeatedly demonstrated, viz. that the term "footballer" is sometimes used; but nobody disputes that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're happy that your evidence stands up despite only 36-40 of your 67 results for 'rugby league player' even existing, it seems we should both check our assertions. Yes, Connell and Burge were on the footballer list and my wording ignored that, sorry. I'm hardly ignoring that footballer can be used without being prefaced with 'rugby league', as I quoted the text and even bolded several 'footballer's on their own. Use of the word footballer by itself is not irrelevant and that has been a key point made by someone else as well as me. Usage of footballer speaks to the validity of the category being named 'rugby league footballers'. You are locked into a 'rugby league player' versus 'rugby league footballer' Google battle and seem unwilling to acknowledge the varied phraseology used by people and also the fact that 'rugby league' is not the only way people refer to the sport in different countries and regions. "Rugby league footballer" also has the benefit of including the popularly used terms "football"/"footballer" in addition to "rugby", "league" and "rugby league", covering all bases without doing anything more than be a valid equivalent to "rugby league player". LunarLander//talk// 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even at 46 hits, it's still four times as many uses in the ADNB of "rugby league player" as for "rugby league footballer". And I am not "locked into a 'rugby league player' versus 'rugby league footballer' battle"; I am trying to find evidence to support one usage versus the other, because nobody has proposed any other usage. Are you putting any more options on the table, or is this just more distraction? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
36* hits. ADNB have decided to categorise using 'rugby league player' so that means, for example, Frank Burge's main article, life summary and references page each contain on a side menu 'rugby league player' whereas 'rugby league footballer' has been chosen for the biography (main article). This is repeated with other people so 'RL players' is multiplied, though not the term used in the texts. More options? Do you mean other than 'players' or 'footballer'? If so, no, these two terms are the only ones that spring to mind. I have attempted to explain my point of view, to evaluate the evidence presented, mention evidence unavailable, and to provide "qualitative" feedback to give an insight into usage. It's unfair to call it distraction, it's not like I enjoy all the AFD, CFD stuff, I don't participate often because it's tedious. I'd much rather be working on an article I've got sandboxed but now I'm here with an opinion, I might as well reply to counter the points I disagree with otherwise the change will waved through. LunarLander//talk// 05:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point, though they have elected to use different terms for the prose of their main product. Anyway, that's why the 'rugby league players' numbers are ramped up in this case. Do you have any thoughts about the points made on the terminology of the sport? LunarLander//talk// 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah c'mon, this is getting silly. We establish that ADNB uses the term for its equivalent of categories, and now you dismiss that as a showing that the "numbers are ramped up", as if this was some sort of false positive. I don't know what you are actually trying to do, but this really does look like some of FUD strategy, as if you were trying to post as much nonsense as possible in the hope of drowning the thread. :( The points made on the terminology of the sport are all just assertions. None of it is backed up by any verifiable evidence. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious about your choice of words: "The points made on the terminology of the sport are all just assertions. None of it is backed up by any verifiable evidence". The side in favour of retaining 'footballer' is clearly not trying to win favour based on numbers, and above you seemed to agree that numbers alone should not decide this. Our approach is more qualitative than quantitative. So far (I'm assuming you've read this whole thread) you've seen evidence that 'footballer' is not only still very much in common usage, but has been preferred over 'player' in the title of a published autobiography, a medical journal and within entries of an encyclopedia. There's also evidence that esteemed writers such as David Malouf[1] and Thomas Keneally[2] prefer the term 'footballer'. Do such sources as the Cambridge guide to literature in English and four legal textbooks[3][4][5][6] also amount to no evidence that the term is commonly used in reliable, publications? These publications chose 'footballer' because they aren't ruled by common usage. They are, (as Wikipedia should also be) concerned with being informative, accurate and not buying into the dumbing down of language. Ghits are clearly a great way of determining common usage and no one is arguing that 'footballer' is anywhere near as prevalent as 'player' in common parlance. This is because ghits take into account usage in the countless blogs, discussion forums and tabloid journalism throughout the internet. It's my opinion that we should, just like the serious publications I've mentioned above, be looking past this common usage at what is best for an encyclopedia.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, I have repeatedly said that there is no dispute about the fact that "footballer" is used in some places, including in reliable sources. However, there is also plenty of evidence above that "player" is used in reliable sources, such as the ADNB. Since both are used in reliable sources, your evidence does not show that "footballer" is the authoritative terminology. We need to compare the the two, and plucking out isolated examples proves nothing; the only serious publication where we have done a vomparison is the ADNB, which you used to insist was an authoritative guide to usage until the closer examination showed that it doesn't support your calims. Google hits may not a perfect method, but it's a lot more informative than plucking out a few individual examples without a comparator. Since the ADNB uses "player" more than it uses footballer, you appear to be claiming that the ADNB is not "informative, accurate", and is "buying into the dumbing down of language". That's an, umm, interesting POV. By the way, so you have any reference in a reliable source for your claim that using "player" is a "dumbing down of language", or is that just your POV? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say we need to compare the two usages, but you still seem to ignore any comparison that is not quantitative (so may involve *gasp* our POVs). Yes, "player" is used in reliable sources, such as the ADB. But not as the authorative terminology, i.e. what one might use in, say, the introductory line of a subject's biography. Or do you think that those at the ADB feel that while 'player' is actually the authorative term, it's best not used in such a prominent position as entries' opening lines but instead saved for more important usages like occupation headings in the article browsing list? They may have used 'player' rather than 'footballer' in occupation headings as that is the term more likely to be searched (although probably not as they're listed alphabetically under 'R' for 'rugby league' anyway). It might be that the people who produced the content at ADB and the people who dealt with arranging it on their website are not the same. Anyway, comparing the two usages, which is more "authorative"? My POV is that the opening lines' occupation terminology is. The words that follow the subject's name and lifespan are the very words that define them, and 'player' is only ever used if the game played is not a form of football. It's interesting to note that they use 'cricketer' and 'golfer' in both the occupation heading and introductory line, however with rugby league, rugby union and Australian rules, it's 'player' in the heading and 'footballer' in the introductory lines. I don't know the reason for this inconsistency. There is one constant though. When it comes to defining footballers in the opening of their articles, 'player' is never used. In my POV this is evidence that 'footballer' is more definitive/authoritive/encyclopedic, etc. So no, since the ADB uses 'player' in a list of occupations to browse (and throughout articles to vary terminology for better written prose), but 'footballer' in subject definitions, I'm not claiming that it is uninformative, inaccurate or dumbing down language, and do still insist that it is an authorative guide. As are the legal textbooks I mentioned. The writers of which were, like us, faced with a choice in terminology between 'player' and 'footballer'. In my POV They chose 'footballer' because as legal textbooks, they are authorative sources, so will use appropriately authoritive language (Do you have another POV on this?). The same goes for the medical journal and text on English literature published by Cambidge University Press (Wikipedia:Verifiability states that "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks..."). I think the more interesting question is how anyone could think that the examples provided are NOT evidence of authorative usage. But rather than answer that, I'm sure you'll keep coming back to numbers. Well here are some more for you: the gap between usage of "footballer" and "player" in a "rugby league" context closes significantly if you search Google books, effectively limiting the comparison to reliable sources only. In the end, the question here is whether to favour common usage and democratization of information or more authorative sources and conservatism when it comes to the English language. It might be that the quantitaive approach wins out in the end. While that's not my personal preference, it would be much easier to accept if it truly were done in the name of consistency, which is only possible if all football codes were represented in the discussion.--Jeff79 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I have gone through all of this but at the end of the day footballer just provides more clarity than player --sss333 (talk) 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
great arguement there, look at it from the point of view of someone who dosen't know what rugby league is, rugby league player could be a some sort of media player for all the person knows, while footballer has a much more definite meaning --sss333 (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"football provides more clarity than player" is not the meaningless statement criticised by the essay you cite. It is quite acceptable to say that "I like language that provides clarity", and also to say "I don't like dumbing down the language to simplify the vocabulary and grammar", even if it does beautifully constrain the expression of diverse subtlties, allowing for effortless universal communication. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think it is important to debate intricate linguistics of how working class sporting thugs refer to themselves? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. Extremely important—just exhaustingly lacking in fun. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was quite surprised to stumble across this; I wasn't expecting anyone, let alone someone of note, to have sat down and articulated the following: "Just as the Australians have built on the traditional components of their game, we must also build on our own values - those of craft and skill, those which make the ‘footballer’ rather than the mere rugby player. While enjoying the qualities which the Australians will no doubt bring to the British winter, we should not forget, without being jingoistic, that the future of the British game does not lie in Australian, but in British hands." - Mike Rylance (journalist and author), Open Rugby, October 1984, p. 22. Cited: Page 80, From Bondi to Batley: Australian Players in British Rugby League 1907- 1995 by Tony Collins / Quickview Rylance makes a distinction between someone who has played the sport and someone who does so at a high, and notable, level. LunarLander//talk// 04:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's in keeping with my understanding of the usage. Kids at schools, and adult amateurs, play football; but the professionals, those for whom playing the game is defining, are called footballers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:RENAME. postdlf (talk) 13:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While no such "ethnic" categories exist for singers (as far as I am aware), categories such as Category:Pashto-language singers, Category:Tamil-language singers do; therefore this category should be renamed as proposed, in alignment to the standard system. Acejet (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Jewish singers. I think that the ethnicity of a singer can be very defining. If that is likely to be the case with the members of the present category, I would say keep. Debresser (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, notwithstanding the Jewish exception. I see a much greater benefit in categorizing singers by language than by ethnicity, and the other ones in south Asia seem to be by language. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Language used is much better defined than ethnicity. --Agesworth (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, unnecessary intersection with nationality. There are only 9 articles in Category:Disbarred lawyers, only five of which are for non-American lawyers who were disbarred, so there is simply no reason to divide these by nationality. Doing so furthermore segregates these lawyers from the broader nationality lawyer categories. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am always in doubt about this kind of thing. Is it worth while to create/maintain a national subcategory? If there are many of them, then even if one specific subcategory is almost empty, you can always defend it by saying that it is part of a structure. But when it is the only one, as often happens especially with "American whatever" subcategories, should we keep it as the possible beginning of a structure, or not? I tend towards deletion in such cases, like postdlf in this case, but the question is a general one. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Small categories that are part of a larger structure are fine, where many countries have many articles, but some may have very few. But here there are only enough articles to substantially populate one such category, and the absolute number of articles is not large either (we should even check to see if any should be removed, as the category description used to include mere suspensions of licenses, which is not the same as disbarment and so shouldn't be done through this category). Another issue to consider regarding when it is worthwhile to maintain a national subcategory is whether it will effectively be a triple intersection (Americans who are lawyers who were disbarred) that would only partially subdivide an occupation category. Here, there are no complementary categories for this category that would cover other lawyers with the same specificity (nondisbarred lawyers? sheesh). Creating too many junction categories fragments the category structure and reduces the avenues of navigation. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic that should be grouped using the category system. The corresponding parent article at List of disbarments in the United States includes more than two dozen disbarred American attorneys which will make the task of expanding this category rather trivial. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Being a disbarred lawyer is a defining characteristic. Being American is a defining characteristic. However, this category is an intersection between the two, and upmerging it will not lose any defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply As best as I can tell, the category has 56 articles so far. By what definition is that a "modest size" that justifies deletion of this category? Given that different countries have their own unique legal systems why shouldn't we expect that other nations will have corresponding lists of their own disbarred lawyers that have not been added due to systemic bias? Why would we not want to associate American disbarred lawyers with the obvious parent Category:American lawyers instead of dispersing it into a global parent of Category:Lawyers? Sure, the entries are still there but we've lost the defining intersection. P.S. Will this be the subject of another attempt by Postdlf to manufacture some sort of controversy, as has become his custom? Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons for which lawyers can be disbarred are broadly similar in most developed countries, so I don't see why any particular nationality is defining. The merged category will have less than 70 articles, which doesn't cause navigational problems. If systemic bias problems are resolved and lots more articles are created, then we can look at splitting the category again, and this can be easily done using catscan to find the intersections ... but I'm not holding my breath for the demise of systemic bias, and we need to organise categories on the basis of those articles which actually exist or which might reasonably expect to be created soon, not on the basis of what we might wish. PS What useful purpose is served by sniping at someone for comments which have not been made? I don't see how that helps reach a decision here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have been advised by several other editors to stop feeding the troll per WP:DFTT. Time to move on. Alansohn (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. This is a classic chestnut, I think—when do we bother segregating out one nationality in a scheme when there are limited numbers? In my opinion—ideally, lawyers should be grouped by the jurisdiction that disbarred them—in the U.S., this is usually at the state level. It is not at the national level, and hence is not really anything to do with nationality. But there is not enough to divide by jurisdiction at this point. So I say just keep 'em all in the same pot and let 'em stew. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. The parent category, Category:Disbarred lawyers, is not overly large so we don't really need to worry about splitting. The existence of this category has resulted in the creation of one additional category with one member which is not needed. So upmerge and allow recreation at such time in the future when the parent categroy, Category:Disbarred lawyers, becomes so large that it really needs splitting. I'll also add that there is a list, so by upmerging navigation is not really hurt in any way. In fact, the list may eliminate the need for the subcategory. The argument that since disbarment is defining is correct, but that simply support the existence of Category:Disbarred lawyers. It does not justify the existence of finer groupings of categories unless there is something unique about each specific grouping. That is simply not the case here. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Propose disambiguating; the film franchise includes films, video games, rides, other stuff. This is not about jaws and the word is otherwise ambiguous. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename per nominator. "Saw", "Jaws". We're into the "-aw" words, is see. Debresser (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to more clearly describe scope of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tremors (franchise) per postdlf. (It certainly needs some form of disambiguation. I thought it was about mini-earthquakes or severe alcohol-withdrawal symptoms). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per changed nomination. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename or delete. Suggest at minimum disambiguating. Phantasm is ambiguous. Not sure we even need it to house just 4 films, though, especially when Template:Phantasm exists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Precedent is to delete small categories when a template exists. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to better match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Jafeluv (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as ambiguous, but in this case not speedily. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to clarify content of category. Alansohn (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate rename: I do think adding "franchise" would clarify the meaning. However, wouldn't it better suit category naming by making it Category:Saw franchise ? GroundZ3R0002 00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:speedy rename all. It makes sense to do these immediately that the vast majority of them are already renamed in this way. These are essentially left-overs from the previous nominations.Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to use "rugby union players" rather than "rugby union footballers". This a followup to the nomination of 104 categories at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_27#Rugby_union_players, which was supported without opposition and is currently being implemented by the bots. I considered whether this could be done as a speedy per Speedy criteria 2.4, but that criterion refers to a "rename bringing a category or categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree" (emphasis added by me), and this is is a new convention, not an established one, so it seems better to offer the opportunity for a full discussion ... but I have no objection to speedying this if any admin feels that is appropriate. Please note that I couldn't be bothered tagging all the categories, and hope that will be OK in this case since these moves are (I think) uncontroversial. I will notify WikiProject Rugby union. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - makes sense to complete the job.. noq (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - Rename originates from wikiproject. (Hopefully some more wp:snow and wp:iar will help this be speedified...?) - Sahmejil (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Other matters related to requests for adminship[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Other" has no referent, unless one digs around in the category tree to see what else is in the parent category. I don't think I've ever seen any other category on the system named this way. NB: Category:Misc. matters..., Category:Assorted matters..., or whatever could also work, as long as isn't something that begs a question. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Presidents of the Mauritanian Senate[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support Rename to better match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Czech and Slovak bishops are good distinguishable. Idea of Czechoslovakism was abandoned a long time ago. All churches which have bishops had during Czechoslovakia era separately Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak dioceses. Czechoslovak Hussite Church is in principle only a Czech church (it has 5 Czech dioceses with 350 congregations and only 1 Slovak diocese with 3 congregations which comprise Czech people mainly). Czech Byzantine-rite Catholics (Greek-catolics) belonged to Slovakian bishop during Czechoslovakia. Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church have two Czech eparchies and two Slovak eparchies. I know no "Czechoslovak bishop". ŠJů (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know of a "Czeckoslovak bishop": Karel Farský. He was a bishop, and he was a national of the state called Czechoslovakia. Thus, his nationality was Czechoslovak. Thus, he was a Czechoslovak bishop. It seems to me the category should be used to categorize historical bishops who were of Czechoslovak nationality, like Farský. Others that could be included based on this definition: Jan Šrámek, Jindřich Šimon Baar, Jan Bula, Jakub Deml, and Andrej Hlinka. (Czechoslovak nationality is a completely separate issue from Czech or Slovak ethnicity, of course.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe, nationality concept relates to ethnic nation, not to state corporation. It exists no "Yugoslav nation" or "Czechoslovak nation" or "Austria-Hungarian nation", just like it exists no "West European nation" or "South American nation". Pittsburgh Agreement mentioned two nations in the new created Czechoslovakia, just as all constitutions since 1948. Idea of czechoslovakism was very controversial from the outset and was expediently created only as the tactical argument in order claiming of self-determination right (Czechoslovakia has more German inhabitants than Slovakian inhabitants). The Declaration from Martin endorsed a document which originally declared self-determination right of Slovakian nation too. Idea of czechoslovakism was injected behindhand and by very controversial way. Czechoslovak Hussite Church was always a Czech church, although professed Czechoslovakism idea. Andrej Hlinka was always Slovak priest and politician, the others named were Czech priests. --ŠJů (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw: Most of named priests was originally in Austria-Hungary, subsequently in Czechoslovakia, subsequently in Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia or in Slovakian state and some subsequently again in Czechoslovakia. But their nationality didn't change. --ŠJů (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you say, "Czechoslovak" was still a nationality. It had passports. It had citizenship laws. There were no separate rights given to the two separate nations. You're probably mixing personal identification with legal fact. Finally, "West Europe" and "South America" have never been unitary sovereign states, so your example is not quite on point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 13:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that English language confuses "nationality" and "state citizenship" don't means that there is no difference. The word "nationality" adverts to "nation", not to state corporation. Your concept of nationality supposes incorrectly that every state generates one nation. However, although political states rise, disappear and regroup, the religious culture has its own continuity independently on momentary political aggregation. --ŠJů (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but this is an English encyclopedia. Nationality and state citizenship are almost always understood to be one and the same in English. "Ethnicity" is used for the other concept. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Bishops in Czechoslovakia. This little tangle illustrates again the avoidable folly of using an adjectival form for naming categories such as this, an issue also discussed at CFD January 1 on Models from Northern Ireland. The fact that someone lives, works, or holds the legal citizenship of a particular country does not necessarily mean that they identify themselves as being "of" that nation. Naming people-by-occupation and nationality categories as "Fooish Boos" presumes that those within the category accept the label "fooish", which is a false presumption in a significant number of cases. It's easily avoidable, and for the sake of neutrality it should be avoided in all such categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep and don't rename, unless we are going to change Category:Czechoslovak people and all its subcategories. Czechoslovak just means "of the state of Czechoslovakia". Yeah, the state sucked if we're worried about representation of the real world of ethnic nations. I think most users understand this. That doesn't change the fact that it was a nationality, with a passport, citizenship laws, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 13:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The state existed, but like other states the adjective is contentious. Why use the contentious form "Fooian booers" when we could use the uncontentious "Booers from Foo"? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but who is going to nominate Category:Czechoslovak people and all its subcategories for renaming? If someone committed to do it, I could support this. Picking this one out will just bring inconsistency to the tree, just as we now have in the Northern Ireland and Georgia (country) ones for people. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Czechoslovak Hussite Church bishops to something clearer - how about Category:Bishops of the Czechoslovak Hussite Church - and remove it from nationality trees altogether (this will empty the category under discussion). (This is one of Pastorwayne's blunders into areas of which he knows nothing.) There is an assumption throughout 'Bishops in Foo' that they are fooian; I expect Rowan Williams is in an English category via some inclusion or other (and probably Anglo Saxon too). (I too know nothing about the Czechoslovak Hussite Church, whether it had branches outside Czechoslovakia, whether its members had to be of particular nationality etc.) Occuli (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a brilliant solution. The word "bishop" should have prompted me to check whether there was some Pastorwaynery involved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with doing this. Pastorwayne, ye still affect us. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Czechoslovak Church" (since 1971 named Czechoslovak Hussite Church) has 5 dioceses in Czech lands and one very little-populous diocese in Slovakia (see here) whose members are mainly from the Czech minority in Slovakia. I have no objection to the proposed renaming. Hovever this category can be categorized under Czech bishops, excepting bishops of Bratislava diocese. Diocese in Bratislava has only two priests now (the bishop Jan Hradil in Bratislava and priest Ján Lauko in Košice). I suppose, hardly some Hussite bishop from Bratislava will have his own article at Wikipedia. --ŠJů (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the historical state. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, states have no bishops, state have ministers and clerks. Only churches have bishops. The question is, how the nationality was perceived by churches. I'm convinced that Slovakian churches preserved their Slovak national identity during the whole Czechoslovak era, just as Czech (Bohemian and Moravian) churches. Even the Czechoslovak Church was specifically Czech church and its influence in Slovakia was minimal and centred foremost on Czech people in Slovakia. --ŠJů (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
States have no bishops, but there are bischops of states, and this is an example. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to maintain reference to the now-defunct state. Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Debresser & Alansohn. --Agesworth (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match head article Cross River (Nigeria) and distinguish from other similarly-named entities. I know that this doesn't fit the speedy criteria, but the speedy criteria should be extended to cover this common situation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match head article Save River (Africa) and distinguish from other similarly-named entities. I know that this doesn't fit the speedy criteria, but the speedy criteria should be extended to cover this common situation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename as disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 08:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match head article Guadalupe River (Texas) and distinguish from other similarly-named entities. I know that this doesn't fit the speedy criteria, but the speedy criteria should be extended to cover this common situation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename per nominator. Speedy per BrownHairedGirl, who must have streak of Brownhairedgirl in her hair. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutral I chose "A.C.E." for this category because of its brevity and the wide use of the abbreviation; for example, journalists refer to the main American Cinema Editors award as the "ACE Eddie Award". The current instructions discourage abbreviations, but not unambiguously. Easchiff (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The abbreviation is highly ambiguous (see ACE), and will be unfamiliar to those already acquainted with the topic. The use of the abbreviation is slightly less problematic with the "ACE Eddie Award" because that title does give some context. However, Category:A.C.E. gives the reader no clue about its meaning when it appears at the bottom of an article, so it is a clear case for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator, per BrownHairedGirl, and per guideline to avoid abbreviations in names of categories. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query. Since sentiment is favoring renaming this category, is there a convenient way of updating the pages that are categorized using its present name? There are about 110 of them. Easchiff (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is. It's called "lean back and relax". After the discussion is closed, a bot will take care of it. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. All the included articles are now linked-to/mentioned in the articles about the people.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Four unnecessary eponymous categories for historical figures, which serve to link (a) things which happen to be named after the person but are irrelevant to understanding the person as a topic in their own right (or even, in the case of Maisonneuve (magazine), named after a street that's named after the person, which is a step further than this kind of thing would be warranted even if it were permissible), and/or (b) things they were involved with which are already adequately linked in the existing body text of the relevant articles anyway. Delete as WP:OCAT: eponym/shared name/small with limited to no growth potential; the one correction that's necessary is to ensure that the eponym articles themselves are readded to Category:People of New France. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the nom is correct on each point. Other categories courtesy of the same creator are marred by the same defects, eg Category:Wilfrid Laurier. Occuli (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without listifying, per nominator. Debresser (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at CfD 2010-01-25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)