The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, compelling policy or naming convention argument to move Mike Cline (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamil Eelam national football team → Tamil Eelam football team – Not a national team. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC) --Blackknight12 (talk) 05:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I object for two reasons - the definition of a nation and consistency. A nation is defined as "a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, or history" (Wkipedia) or "a community of persons not constituting a state but bound by common descent, language, history etc" (Collins dictionary). A nation does not need to be an independent sovereign state. The Tamils of Sri Lanka have long considered themselves a separate nation, long before they started agitating for an independent sovereign state. Wikipedia has a good article on Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism - how can there be nationalism without a nation? There are more than 50 nations that aren't independent sovereign states that have "national football team" articles: American Samoa, Anguilla, Aruba, Basque Country, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Brittany, Catalonia, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Corsica, Curaçao, Darfur, England, Faroe Islands, French Guiana, Galicia, Greenland, Guadeloupe, Guam, Hong Kong, Iraqi Kurdistan, Isle of Man, Macau, Martinique, Mayotte, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, New Caledonia, Northern Cyprus, Northern Ireland, Northern Mariana Islands, Occitania, Padania, Palestine, Puerto Rico, Réunion, Sahrawi, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Scotland, Sealand, Silesia, Sint Maarten, Tahiti, Tibet, Turks and Caicos Islands, Two Sicilies, United States Virgin Islands, Wales, Wallis and Futuna and Zanzibar. If Tamil Eelam doesn't qualify to be called a "national football team" because it isn't an independent sovereign state, then neither do any of those. Singling out this article for renaming while allowing other nations who aren't independent sovereign states to have "national football team" articles seems like a politically motivated move. (Please also see related page move discussion).--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do agree with you on that if one is moved all other pages should be moved. But I must remind you not all Tamils think this way, however that is a conversation for another day.--Blackknight12 (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Obi2canibe. That's a pretty exhaustive list, so I'm inclined not to disturb the current order. --BDD (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What if all those were to be changed?--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is not a national team, in that it is not affiliated to FIFA or any continental football confederation. The "country" itself doesn't have any official status, so how can it have a "national team"? – PeeJay 00:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Obi2canibe's comment. A nation is a very different thing from a sovereign state. What do FIFA have to do with it? Firstly, we do not follow official names, and secondly, why would not being a FIFA member imply that it is not a nation? I am not personally familiar with Tamil Eelam, but to use an example I do know a little about, Catalonia is not a country, but is definitely a nation. As such, their national team article is titled Catalonia national football team, even though aren't affiliated with FIFA or UEFA. Do you have any evidence that Tamil Eelam is not a nation/nationality? Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't care about Obi2canibe's comment. I would support the majority of those teams being renamed too. – PeeJay 22:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great attitude to have for working on a collaborative project. But seriously, I didn't mean his points about other articles (though they are relevant to the discussion). I meant that your question, "The 'country' itself doesn't have any official status, so how can it have a 'national team'?", had already been answered: authoritative sources have said that a "nation" does not have to be an independent state. Jenks24 (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I suspect you'd begin to care if I used the same rationale used by Blackknight12 to request that England national football team and Wales national football team be renamed. And why should only the majority of teams be renamed, why not all? Are some teams special?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Peejay - not affiliated to FIFA, does not represent a nation. Unfortunately Obi2canibe appears ignorant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 11:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, while OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor argument at AfD, it is a very strong argument at RM because consistency is one of the five principle naming criteria. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever the consensus will be in here, it should be applied to all those teams above, including this very recent proposal. In fact 05:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, and that recent result should be taken into consideration. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I think we also need to look at other sports here. Cricket, for example, has West Indies cricket team because the West Indies is not a nation (it also has England cricket team, but that's because the England cricket team actually represents England and Wales, so it wouldn't be fair to refer to it as the England national cricket team when it has also included Welshmen). – PeeJay 11:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - PeeJay, that's a good point you bring up, these should be titles should be the same across all sports.--Blackknight12 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The English and West Indies cricket team articles omit "national" from their titles because they represent more than one nation. There are a number nations that aren't independent sovereign states but have "national cricket team" articles: Scotland national cricket team, Hong Kong national cricket team, Bermuda national cricket team etc. And so do other team sports: England national rugby union team, England national rugby league team, England men's national basketball team, England national field hockey team etc.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The region is not officially defined nor recognized, and more importantly, neither is the soccer team. I reject the majority of Obi2canibe's comment; many of the teams listed there are teams of recognized and defined (for the most part) regions, and whose teams are affiliated to a footballing federation recognized by FIFA (the FA, CONCACAF, French federation, etc). I agree there are some grey areas (as with Occitania national football team), but there really isn't a precedent or a convention to follow here, because a good discussion hasn't taken place (correct me if I am wrong). Hence, WP:OSE is, for the most part, irrelevant, because all the other pages in this grey area haven't been subjected to any discussion on naming. While on the topic of WP:OSE, there are pages like Sápmi football team, Aramean Syriac football team, Provence football team and West Papua football team; I can just as easily form a counter argument about existing precedents and conventions using these article titles. Lynch7 10:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Most of the comments here don't mention the original reasoning for renaming i.e. that Tamil Eelam isn't a nation. They only refer to the fact this team isn't affiliated to FIFA. FIFA do not own football and they can't dictate who can calls themselves a nation and who can't.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.