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. Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon until 1972. There are a few entries in Category:Years in Ceylon already so some standardisation is needed. Tim! (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is essentially the same issue as the renames for races when the sponsor changes. I think the category name should reflect the name of the event at the time or the name of the country at the time. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 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 result of the discussion was:speedied as C1 and A10. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the large amount of text in this category, there are no articles here; and the text we do have appears to be cut and pasted from List of companies of Canada. Speedy delete C1 this. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:41, 28 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: Arguably a CamelCase neologism. Not sure what to rename it to though. Pcapping 16:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do we need a categroy for operating systems that were bootable by a card deck? I'm not sure about keeping at this time, but if kept Rename to Category:Floppy disk operating systems. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague. The proposed renames remove the neologism, but do not reflect the inclusion criteria which are set to exclude an OS which can boot off a floppy but requires other mass storage devices to run usefully; that excludes Windows 2000 and many flavours of Linux. A rename which reflects those inclusion criteria would require a horribly verbose category name. I think that this is a topic much better covered in a list. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:44, 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 result of the discussion was:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the description says: 'This category covers poets who achieved fame for typically writing verse widely viewed, almost universally by critics and commentators, as utterly awful.' (See also the article, Poetaster.) While I can't deny that this is an accurate description of the people currently in it, I think this is a bad idea for a category. It's basically equivalent to Category:Really bad poets, and arguably POV - there isn't an objective way of determining who belongs in the category. We wouldn't have Category:Awful writers or Category:Terrible actors, and this is no different. Robofish (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (I created the category.) We wouldn't have Category:Awful writers or Category:Terrible actors, and this is no different. Actually, it's very different. This isn't a "Terrible poets" or "Awful writers" category: It's a category of people notable for widely viewed, almost universally by critics and commentators as horrible versifiers. That's either a sourcable fact or it isn't (much like Category:Humorous poets rests on the poet being viewed, nearly universally, as someone readers and critics read because they find the verse funny). The Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online calls James McIntyre (poet) and his versifying descendents "the four worst poets of Canada writing in English." [1] (those particular poets were in on the joke). If we call someone a "comic" poet (Edward Lear, article lead: renowned today primarily for his literary nonsense, in poetry and prose) or say William Shakespeare is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's preeminent dramatist -- source provided in the lead), then we can source the idea that someone was known for particularly bad poetry. Merely being a very good or very bad poet would be incredibly difficult to source because the critics will have a range of opinions. Being a great poet or spectacularly awful poet whose fame rests on being awful is different because the sources are all united or nearly all united. This was largely (almost entirely) a 19th century phenomenon, by the way: Newspaper editors celebrated really horrible poets with ironic reviews for humorous copy, and these poets became famous because of it (except, probably, Ebenezer Jones, who might be removed from the category). It is certainly possible that some child is going to do some vandalism by including a poet in the category. If we simply relied on a list of such poets at Poetaster, the same situation would apply: so should we refrain from having a list there because it might be abused? I concede that adding poets to the category is an obvious way to do some vandalism, but a kid could add an article about an actress or a politician to Category:Famous chimpanzees without much more thinking. Do we really want to censor ourselves this way, especially when these poets are continuing to appear in anthologies of bad verse (see Julia A. Moore#References)? When I created the category, I thought it would be better to serve readers who find out about J. Gordon Coogler to discover, as quickly and easily as possible, that he was one of a number of writers known for just the same kind of thing. I think that's the main purpose of a category. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category is certainly justified. There are a small subset of poets who are particularly and uniquely known for, well, their true awfulness. (Oddly, this seems to be a thing limited to poetry - you never see famous "terrible artists" or "terrible novelists" in the same way. Someone could no doubt pen a PhD on why this is.) McGonagall is the most famous of these, to me at least, but on skimming the article it seems McIntyre occupies much the same niche in Canadian literature. Being a widely-recognised atrocious poet is a defining feature of these people's significance, it's one they share, and it can quite clearly be attested from secondary sources; these all seem pretty good reasons for having some kind of categorisation to link them.
The one issue I have is with the title - "poetaster" is a nice word, but it's very obscure, and until today I don't think I'd ever seen it used for McGonagall; "poet" with an adjective is much more common. The category might be better served with a more descriptive title - "famously bad poets" wouldn't work, but something along those lines. Shimgray | talk | 19:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't oppose that name change, although there's also something gained by having "Poetaster" despite the confusion it may cause for some -- kind of like having the pretty illustrations for the Sunset and Sunrise articles. Sort of. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. There are indeed poets known because of their awfulness, but the problem with a category such as this is that while there would be no argument about the inclusion of the worst (such as McGonagall), there will be many more people who are arguably bad poets, but may not be as widely-celebrated for their awfulness as McGonagall. That fuzziness may encourage editors to apply inclusion criteria, but since there is no straightforward and intuitive way of defining a boundary, any such criteria will fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Those problems don't apply so strongly to a list, because list entries can be referenced, so I have no objection to listification. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. While I agree with JohnWBarber that the category may be useful to readers, it does seem that Category:Poetasters differs from bad singers or bad ideas primarily in that we have a noun for bad poets and are thus able to avoid the upsetting adjective "bad", and that may not be enough reason to make an exception for it. Contrary to Shimgray, appreciation for artistic badness is not unique to poetry; there are artists and performers in other fields who are particularly and uniquely known--and celebrated--for their badness. Examples are bad singersFlorence Foster Jenkins (whose recordings enchant new generations of fans decades after her death), Mrs. Miller, and William Hung; bad novelistsHarry Stephen Keeler and the multitalented Amanda Ros; and the king of bad film directors, Ed Wood. Ewulp (talk) 04:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BHG and Ewulp, thank you both for the thoughtful replies. BHG: I don't see much fuzziness in having criteria for the category (stated on the page), rather than in a list -- in both cases, sourcing should be demanded. We have such sourcing. As for "fuzziness", I agree completely that there should be no fuzziness here -- at least no more than the Edward Lear or Shakespeare examples I gave above, which set a good standard that I even go a bit above (demanding "almost universal" critical/public reaction; demanding that the subject's notability be dependent on that bad reaction; demanding that the universal reaction be that the verses are utterly awful -- that's a high, stiff standard to meet). When we have third-party sources which indicate the critical consensus was as universal as it gets, we're out of fuzzy gray areas and into nearly black-and-white territory. There are articles on bad poets that won't meet the criteria and which shouldn't be in the category, a kind of situation that always exists with any articles and categories. But we have solid sourcing that these poets do meet stiff criteria: It is an objective fact that these poets achieved fame for what almost everyone thought was awful poetry: Statement in third-party source for Julia A. Moore & McGonagal: Like [...] McGonagall, she is famed chiefly for writing notoriously bad poetry[2] J. Gordon Coogler: unadoring public [...] a running joke [...] today a number of mock-serious Coogler societies flourish and even dispense awards[3] If the sources are cited in the articles, which I will add to, then I think that shouldn't be a bar to a category when a sourced list would be acceptable. Ewulp, if we can create categories with similar high standards for inclusion, wouldn't it be better to have them for articles like William Hung and Ed Wood. If there are enough articles to make a category worthwhile, sourcing of third parties reporting on the widespread reaction of critics should eliminate the WP:SUBJECTIVE objection. There is actually less fuzziness here than in the description at Category:LGBT people. One more point: The awfulness of these poets is their most defining feature: More important than nationality, location or anything else about them. It is the primary basis of their notability. If they weren't so bad, they wouldn't be known (the Coogler source, above, notes that H.L. Mencken "rescued" Coogler from obscurity precisely because Coogler was so bad). The lead paragraphs of each article baldly state how their awfulness created their notability, indicating it isn't a subjective standard. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria for inclusion is rather well defined, and we've blown away subjectivity claims with categories such as Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As long as we have reliable and verifiable sources, there's no issue with inclusion and any issues with particular borderline cases should be addressed at the article in question. As to subjectivity, do we have an ironclad definition of who belongs in Category:Poets. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons already stated. Would not object to a rename. - Montréalais (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Where there is near-unanimous critical consensus as to the merits (or otherwise) of a particular writer, it is not Wikipedia's place to challenge that consensus. These poetasters are demonstrably acknowledged as awful: grouping them together merely makes Wikipedia a more useful reference tool for those seeking information on notably bad poets. Deletion of the category doesn't make the individual articles any better and, in fact, makes Wikipedia less useful - and therefore worse. BlackMarlin (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I created the article J. Gordon Coogler, it just felt right to seek out and use Category:Poetasters — even though I knew it would be obviously inappropriate to look for (or create) Category:Bad poets. I also agree with User:JohnWBarber that we are unlikely to see poets added to the category from the last half-century, much less living poets. The phenomenon is notable, but it is very much of the 19th century. — ℜob C.aliasᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 20:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Ewulp, who I think gets this right. We wouldn't have categories like this for any other media; the existence of a fancy-pants word for it should not change that. The article poetaster is sufficient and the list should exist there. Not that it's a current concern, but the category does have BLP problem potential. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Some things are memorable for being *bad!* This includes the notorious poets in this category!203.56.94.11 (talk) 04:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply That's an argument for a list, but a category needs to meet several other criteria, such as not being subjective. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 5 February 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was the omission of the "r" in "category" deliberate for Mr. Carter? Alansohn (talk) 04:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the rather unlikely event that we actually needed this, it would be more appropriately named Category:Potato farmers — as the nominator quite correctly points out, there's actually a hard and fast rule about not using "notable" in category names. But realistically, its usefulness is doubtful; while farmers are subcatted by nationality, as Occuli quite correctly points out, we don't have a practice of subcatting them by individual crop. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "notable" part of the category title is superfluous, because if a person is non-notable there should not be an article on them. Categorising farmers by crop is not a good idea, because plenty of farmers grow several crops, in a mix which may change over time. That just leaves "farmers", and we already have a category for them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --"Notable" is redundant as NN people do not have articles. If kept it should just be Category:Potato farmers, but I do not think we should be categorising farmers by crop: most practice crop rotation and so have multiple crops. The article is already is in Category:Australian farmers, so that there is no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 31 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band that has yet to demonstrate sufficient notability (as determined by number of related subarticles) to need one; the articles are already linked by a template. Delete per WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favour of the template being the superior navigational interface. When/if there are enough article for their songs/albums, then recreate it, but there aren't right now. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I created categories for the album and song, which are needed regardless of whether Category:Soulidium is kept or deleted; however, I kept the categories in Category:Soulidium so as not to prejudge the outcome of this discussion. The only ambiguity is whether the band (and, by extension, its albums and songs) should be categorized as "hard rock" or "alternative metal". –Black Falcon(talk) 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both arguments of nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The album and song articles are already categorized elsewhere and the template is in a template-specific category, so delete per above. The navigation template and the links within the main article suffice for purposes of navigation; at this time, the eponymous category is superfluous. –Black Falcon(talk) 20:47, 1 February 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 both. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The band is simply called Wipers, and the categories should match the parent article. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The article was moved back in 2005, and it hasn't been reverted since, so this is stable enough to rename the categories; so rename to match parent article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per the article. Occuli (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom to match the title of the main article and what appears to the be the actual name of the band. –Black Falcon(talk) 23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 3 February 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. 08:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Rename to match usage of parent category. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 3 February 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to include disambiguator. Several articles from Category:Elasticity (physics) were wrongly included in this category, so I think this would clarify its purpose. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 01:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom to match heading, and for disambiguation. --04:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
Rename per nom. I can see how unrelated articles would get dropped in here very easily. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 3 February 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. Some of the concerns expressed about the contents can be addressed by updating the introduction to explain what the category contains. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the main article, Association football. The topic of the article's title has been discussed many, many times at Talk:Association football, and I maintain that this CfD discussion is not the place to have another discussion about the name.
The primary objection to renaming in the previous discussion, which ended as no consensus, was that the phrase "association football" is known only in the United Kingdom and, therefore, that "association football" is more ambiguous than "football (soccer)". Not only was this concern raised and considered during the requested move discussion, but it is plainly incorrect. The governing body for the sport for North and Central America and the Caribbean is the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF). Here is an example of the phrase being used in the title of a publication (guide?) by the New Zealand Ministry of Education. The phrase is even in the name of the international governing body for the sport, the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (English: International Federation of Association Football) or FIFA.
In addition, the phrase "football (soccer)" is confusing even in the context of Wikipedia's naming conventions. Many Wikipedia articles and categories use parenthetical disambiguators to identify the topic of the article or category. For example, the article title David Smith (director) translates to "the director David Smith" or "David Smith, the director", and the category title Fiona (singer) albums translates to "albums by the singer Fiona" or "albums by Fiona, the singer". Applying that same principle to the title Football (soccer) produces a nonsensical result: "the soccer football" or "football, the soccer".
Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and it is only natural that we should use the accepted, country-neutral, international name of the sport. "Football (soccer)" is an invented phrase designed to be an awkward compromise between the truly-ambiguous (in an international context) "football" and the non-international "soccer".
Rename to match the article. Occuli (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming The category page doesn't even spell out that the category refers to what Americans call "soccer". Roughly half of the people who go to the English Wikipedia do so from the United States, according to some research I read a while back. Some will know what "association football" is about. Many won't, and Wikipedia isn't written for experts (even knowledgable sports fans) but for general readers. The name should not create confusion for so many readers, even if it's momentary confusion. The Football article notes that Canadians have Canadian Football, Australians have Australian football and the English (and others?) have forms of Rugby apparently also called "football" (is that true?), so people in these other countries, presumably, are more likely to know "football" may not necessarily mean association football/soccer. According to Football (word), the word "soccer" is well known in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Caribbean and even in the UK, so there should be much less confusion by using that word. Americans, particularly the American readers less familiar with sports and therefore more likely to be confused, are likely to know of only one thing when the word "football" comes up. We should use language that will confuse the least number of readers. Or is there a corresponding gain that would make the added confusion worthwhile? Whatever we do, a short sentence or two on the differences is worth putting at the top of the category page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken care of that omission in the category description. I think it is unnecessary to add significant detail to the category description, since interested readers have the option of following the link to the main article (I also added a link to Names for association football).
I don't think that renaming will have a significant net effect on confusion, for a few reasons:
First, just as "association football" will confuse some readers, so the invented formulation "football (soccer)" will confuse others—not only because they may not be aware of the term "soccer", but also because the inelegant phrasing of "football (soccer)" actually suggests that football is a type or example of soccer (just like "John Smith (politician)" translates as "John Smith, the politician").
Second, renaming would standardize the category name with the article name—something that almost always helps to minimize confusion.
Fourth, I believe that the obscurity of the term "association football" in the United States is exaggerated; as I noted in the nomination, it is used even in the name of the governing body for the sport in North America. From personal experience, I know that it is highly uncommon to hear the phrase "association football" used in normal conversation in the US, but not because the term is unknown—it's simply the case that another term ("soccer") is dominant.
Finally, it appears to me that your objection is not specific to the category but applies equally to the article, where it has been raised and considered numerous times. If you feel strongly about the matter, then I think that the proper place to start would be on the talk page of the article. If there is consensus to move back the article to Football (soccer), then I would support having a matching category name. –Black Falcon(talk) 21:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The category redirect is a good point. I hadn't thought much about the article name, but I'm not sure it's even a problem to have the category named differently, but I'll think about it. My guess is that "association football" is as unfamiliar to most American readers as it was to me, but I could be wrong, and if American editors say the term is very familiar in this country, I could be persuaded. To me, it brings up the image of some kind of (American) football league, rather than soccer. The organization name seems obscure, to me. Isn't "soccer" more widespread outside the U.S. than "association football" is inside the U.S.? Among all English speakers (our overall readership), taken as a whole, isn't "soccer" more widely recognized than "association football"? Google gives me almost 700K hits for "a. s." [4] but 155 million for "soccer". [5] I realize the Internet may be skewed toward U.S. sources, but that's a big difference: 200:1. It's worse on Google News, 30:1 on Google Books. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if "soccer" was more widely recognized internationally than "association football". Most of the world, including the English-speaking world, simply calls the sport "football" or some version of "foot"+"ball", such as Fußball (German), Fútbol (Spanish), Futbol (Turkish), and 足球 (Chinese: 足=foot, 球=ball). The term "soccer" is used in only a small number of countries, and is virtually unknown outside of them.
Regardless of the outcome, I appreciate your thought-out response and your willingness to consider my points. Best, –Black Falcon(talk) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the cat always follows the article. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 06:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no it doesn't. The need for extra clarity in category names has often been recognised here. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "always" is not accurate, but "almost always" certainly is. And one of the claims that this nomination disputes is that "football (soccer)" is in fact more clear than "association football". –Black Falcon(talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match main article, but for the benefit of those Americans who do not realise that "soccer" is a diminutive of Association (Football), place a note at the head of the category (if necssary) that the sport is also known as soccer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match the article title. It's a reasonable compromise between "football" and "soccer" and using an awkward disambiguator like "(soccer)" should be avoided where possible. In any case, it makes no sense to use a different term for the category than for the article that describes exactly the same thing. Jafeluv (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rename sub-cats subsequently. Have changed my mind on this - did favour 'football (soccer)' for WP usage but now don t think its necessary. As per Peterkingiron, a clarifying note needs to be placed on pages Mayumashu (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as usual; category names often need extra clarity, and this is a classic example. The only new argument here is the wonderfully specious 4th para in the nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An old, but valid, argument is in no way inferior to a new one. Also, in what way is the argument in the fourth paragraph specious? Thanks, –Black Falcon(talk) 20:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, for two reasons. The first reason is that the comparison is not valid, in my opinion. A page title should identify the topic of that page: Seattle Sounders FC is an article about a particular organization and "Seattle Sounders FC" is the formal English-language name of that organization, so the page title "Seattle Sounders FC" unambiguously identifies the organization (unless there is another organization with the same name...).
The second, and more significant, reason is that the main article about the topic of the sport of American football is located at American football. If you can somehow form a consensus to rename the article American football to American football (gridiron), then I would support your nomination to make consistent the article and category titles. –Black Falcon(talk) 08:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the ambiguity, I was responding to Johnbod. I agree with you, but was making a logical extension of John's argument. I've clarified. WFCforLife (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Now that you've clarified that the "that's" applies to "American football" and not to Seattle Sounders FC, I can see that the first part of my comment is inapplicable. –Black Falcon(talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 04:32, 3 February 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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 8. Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Countries.png){kind=link}