< June 27	June 29 >

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 merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Singapore to Category:Expatriates in Singapore

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Notwithstanding that Singapore, as both a city and country, is a special case, Category:Expatriates in Singapore functions fine (given the page purpose statement given at the top of Category:People from Singapore Mayumashu (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and fix the introduction to Category:People from Singapore so that its usage matches that of the rest of the people from categories. 'People from' was chosen since being born in a place is not considered to be notable in that persons life, in most cases. Citizenship is not a function of this category tree. If there is a need to categorize citizenship, then another solution should be used. But given that we don't, as far as I know, categorize based on citizenship, why is that needed here? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

??Yes we do - Category:Singaporean people lists citizens of Singapore, and this cat lists expats to Singapore (either born in Singapore or not [where apparently Singapore does not 'maintain' jus soli]) Mayumashu (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The people from has no relevance to citizenship. This category is for anyone who has lived a significant portion of their life in Singapore. We have various expatriate and naturalized citizens of place X categories, like Category:Naturalized citizens of France, and categories like Category:French biologists is a combination of citizenship and occupation. However this category would not be limited to expatriates and so the rename would just confuse its contents. This is especially true since Singapore has not been an independent country for most of its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?How would it not be limited to expats, as its purpose is stated? Would you be suggesting it be a 'collector category' of sorts for both citizens (Category:Singaporean people) and expats (Category:Expatriates in Singapore). That is not what this category' current page is (as described at the top of the page). It would mean revamping the whole category tree for people and their relationship to countries. As its purpose is stated and its being used, it is just for expats in Singapore (and perhaps one or two stateless individuals - see next below) Mayumashu (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose that doesn't make sense. The category description doesn't make sense; but it is for people born in Singapore who are not citizens, so it would include stateless people born in Singapore, which would not be expats. Expats in Singapore would be people from elsewhere found in Singapore. People from Singapore are not expats when they are in Singapore. Expats from Singapore would be Singaporean people outside of Singapore... Not everyone in Singapore is an expat, so even if you only included people in Singapore in the from category, it would not be the same set of people. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean expats in Singapore, not from Singapore. Not everyone from Singapore is listed, just those who are not citizens of Singapore (please check the page nominated). As for stateless people, there may be one or two listed, but they are an anomaly that should not dictate how we approach this category tree. Mayumashu (talk) 12:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/purge as nominated. Having looked at the contents of the category, I have to say that I think the nominator is on the right track here, and that the oppose comments above are a little bit off-track. People who are not Singaporean who are "from Singapore" can simply be categorized in Category:Expatriates in Singapore. People born in Singapore with no other connection to the place don't need to be categorized as being connected to Singapore at all, since place of birth is not defining. This is nothing that can't be handled by what exists in Category:Singaporean people and Category:Expatriates in Singapore. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at this and the Kuwait proposal (June 26 page), and many previous discussions about these country/people intersections, I suggest there is a need for a wiki-wide policy on what the intended meaning of each phrase. If a notable (British, American etc) person happens to have been born in Singapore/Kuwait, and that fact has no relevance to their notability, is there, or should there be, policy saying this does not merit inclusion in a category? Until then I can't see a way to decide these two nominations. And if there is policy on the use of each of these "people from X" "Y people" "Emigrants to Z" etc etc, maybe a link to the policy/guideline could be made in to a template and posted on each category page concerned. Sussexonian (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2011 (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 per C2D. The main article is at Cotswold (district). Timrollpickering (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cotswold to Category:Cotswold (district)

Nominator's rationale: The name is too close to Category:Cotswolds and has already been a source of confusion for me (and others). There is already a cagtegory Category:People from Cotswold (district) so it makes sense to follow that same format. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some kind of rationalisation is required. Neither Cotswold as a political distiction nor Cotswolds as a geographic distinction is sufficient to addess the fact that most people see the Cotswolds in a more holistic way that includes the places, people and the land. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support the next district to the west is Category:Stroud (district) which was renamed following this CFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 4#Category:Stroud, Gloucestershire and thus standardization.Curb Chain (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to conform to main article Cotswold (district). --Mhockey (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to conform to main article. The Cotswolds as a geographic area is larger than the district so the two categories have different purposes so should have noticeably different names. Sussexonian (talk) 09:20, 1 July 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the supracategory page for some cat pages that were upmerged piece-meal earlier this year, but a number still remain (the subcategoris for this category). The argument to upmerge is that people by ethnic descent should not be subdivided by (broad) occupation, that to do so violates WP:OC. Category:American sportspeople of Irish descent was upmerged to Category:American people of Irish descent, for example. Should this tree be felled, the remaining subcats will be nominated for upmerging. Mayumashu (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not part of a category tree: We don't have Category:American soccer players by ethnicity, Category:Baseball players by ethnicity etc. (Moreover, listed, with the arguable exception of African-American boxers, are boxers by ethnic descent, not ethnicity - we no longer have however Category:American sportspeople of Irish descent, etc.) Mayumashu (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are nine subcategories—none of them tagged or listed here. How can we delete this when we still have the subcategories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't the subcategories qualify for 'speedies', if this category goes? Maybe not. Mayumashu (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 5 July 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not part of any category tree - there is no Category:Footballers by ethnicity, Category:Association footballers by ethnicity, or Category:Association football players by ethnciity; Golfers by ethnicity, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 5 July 2011 (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 per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre-Columbian to Category:Pre-Columbian era

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The key article for this category is at Pre-Columbian era, and... well, it just looks wrong with an adjectival name. And it's not standard WP practice, either. Grutness...wha? 14:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nomCurb Chain (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2011 (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 per C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airborne divisions of Great Britain to Category:Airborne divisions of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. United Kingdom is the correct name of the country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename seems like this one could be speedied (as a typo). Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename no further commentCurb Chain (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename makes sense Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:45, 29 June 2011 (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. C'est comme un ballon de neige... Grutness...wha? 01:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This orphaned cat is a non-notable intersection between sexuality and being a painter who paints clowns. We have Category:Clown painters, which may or may not be a useful category. szyslak (t) 09:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Is it the painters, or the clowns? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Daftify. And is it clowns who paint or people who paint clowns? Straight artists of bi clowns? Bi artists of straight clowns? Who's on first? Watt's on second? Grutness...wha? 14:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS - I'm assuming it's not the name of a band... Grutness...wha? 06:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard to believe, but the phrase "bisexual clown painters" did not exist anywhere on the Internet until this category was created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Considering the clow painters category is so small that it would fall under over-cat there is no justification for this very specific sub-categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above/no further commentCurb Chain (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everybody else. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strap to chair and electrocute. Although I imagine that it was created as a (well deserved?) parody of "Category:LGBT artists from Canada", "Category:LGBT Jews" and so forth, and that the more earnest this "discussion", the greater the parodic success of the category. -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Was someone being earnest? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 3 July 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category contains two articles. Malkinann (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not everything needs a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Example of overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category contains one article. Malkinann (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not everything needs a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (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 מישהו Od Mishehu 07:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category only contains two articles. Malkinann (talk) 04:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Not enough articles. -- deerstop. 04:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not everything needs a category. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2011 (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 per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Asbury College alumni to Category:Asbury University alumni

Nominators rationale: This puts it in line with the parent category and parent article. Asbury University is the current name of this institution, but it is a fairly recent change which explains why the category has the old name, which may have been the current name when the cat was formed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2011 (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 per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Moscow-City to Category:Moscow International Business Center

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Moscow International Business Center. Moscow-City redirects there and the category under the current name could perhaps be confused with Category:Moscow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In addition to the reasons given avoiding the whole dash war is always a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 28, 2011; 13:39 (UTC)

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 per C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UNRWA officials to Category:United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East officials

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Slightly unwieldy, but that's the UN for you. This nomination is to match the name of the category to the article United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The wikipedia policy is to avoid acrynyms and abreviations and use the full name in category titles. There are some exceptions to this rule, but this does not seem to be a place to make aan exception.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Agree with Johnpacklabmert; "UNRWA" is ambiguous and readers should not have to click on another page just to see what it stands for.Curb Chain (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure that "UNRWA" is "ambiguous": I don't know of any other possible meanings that could be ascribed to this abbreviation. UNRWA redirects to the article about the UN org with the long name. Perhaps what was meant was that it's meaning is cryptic or not commonly known. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 30 June 2011 (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 to "Soccer players." Now that the nomination to rename Association football in Australia to Soccer in Australia has passed, any similar categories can be done speedily.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Australian football (soccer) players to Category:Australian association footballers or Category:Australian association football players
Category:Australian female football (soccer) players to Category:Australian female association footballers or Category:Australian female association football players
Category:Football (soccer) players in Australia by club to Category:Association footballers in Australia by club or Category:Association football players in Australia by club.

Nominator's rationale: The change of "football (soccer)" to "association football" is uncontroversial per the usage that has been adopted for Australia (see Category:Association football in Australia). The question whether to use "association footballers" or "association football players" is a bit more difficult, in my opinion, and so I am bringing these categories here for discussion. Subcategories will be speedily renamed, as needed, after consensus is reached in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to the 2nd choice, per Category:Association football players. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually all national level categories are except for the two that are soccer players are either footballers or associaiton footballers. There is no national level category that is Association football players. There does not seem to be any strong precedent. The higher up categories use Association football players, but each by nationality is things like Category:Bulgarian footballers. Thus there seems to be no controlling precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right about the difference in usage: "(association) football players" is used by most higher-level categories and "(association) footballers" is used by all but a few national-level categories. There is one national-level category (South Africa) that uses "association football players" and two (Ireland and New Zealand) that use "association footballers". However, the South African category tree is not consistent throughout, as evidenced by the title of Category:Association footballers in South Africa by club. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ISTR that the NZ categories aren't consistent either, having Soccer in New Zealand as its overall parent's key article (and quite an edit war over that name, too, IIRC).It also seems to have Category:New Zealand football referees, Category:Expatriate soccer players in New Zealand, Category:New Zealand female soccer players, Category:Defunct soccer competitions in New Zealand, Category:Auckland football (soccer) clubs, Category:Defunct New Zealand football clubs... someone needs to get into that whole tree with a bathroom plunger and monkey wrench. Grutness...wha? 14:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ... and quite a bit of sanitizer, too. :) I was planning on addressing the NZ tree (by the way, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland trees are not in much better shape) after I completed my pass through the Australian tree, but I'm not even sure where to begin: Soccer in New Zealand is, as you noted, the main article, yet the "association football" wording was adopted for the main category in a 2010 discussion. Which usage should the subcategories follow?
      One positive result of these changes, in addition to increased consistency in and predictability of category names, is that many formerly missing links in the 'Association football' tree have been identified and created. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd go with "Association football". The sport's officially called football in NZ, but to a lot of the population, "football" instantly means rugby union. Everyone here would understand Association football though. It's worth checking Talk:New Zealand/Archive 6#Football not Soccer and Talk:New Zealand/Archive 5#Soccer is now Football., though, since - as I said - this has been the subject of a low-level edit war in the past. Personally, I'd be tempted to damn the torpedoes and just move the article, but I've been called a "Rouge admin" more than once ;) Grutness...wha? 01:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all with choice two, as per Occuli. And I say cats for any country should be likewise: Category:German association football players, Category:French association football players, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 15:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the consensus in this discussion is for the second choice, then I will write a test nomination, using a small sample of the c. 220 "footballers" categories, to propose a change from "footballers" to "(association) football players" on a wider scale. 20:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Another point not mentioned yet (sigh!). Is there anywhere in the world that talks about "Female football players"? They're "Women's football players" - surely the whole tree of Category:Female association football players should reflect that, as with basketball, lacrosse, and similar sports which use that term? (actually, there seems to be a mish-mash at this level, too. That looks like a LOT of work!) Grutness...wha? 01:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football to try to decide the "footballers"-versus-"football players" issue, since that will affect the national-level categories for women's football players, too. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Normally it's Category:English footballers, Category:French footballers - as it should remain for those nations, where there is no ambiguity as to what sport you are referring to - but in some countries where other codes of football are (more) prominent (Australia, Ireland, NZ, SA, USA, Canada are the ones that spring to mind) then I feel they should be disambiguated by the sport's full name, and become 'Xish/Xian association footballers'. 'Xish/Xian association football players' is also fine, but never 'football players'. I would advise you to stay well away from Category:English footballers et al - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Nobody in England/France etc. refers to the sportspeople as 'association football players' - they are footballers! GiantSnowman 17:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't intend to propose a "football"-to-"association football" change for any of the European categories, except perhaps Ireland and Northern Ireland, but your comment is helpful regarding the need (or lack thereof) of a "footballers"-to-"football players" change. Based on the response here and at WT:FOOTY, I am happy to leave the "footballers" wording alone. Also, the categories for those countries where "football" is the dominant usage appear to be in good shape; it's mainly the Australian, Irish, NZ and SA category trees which are in need of cleanup. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why isn't this named "soccer"? Wouldn't football mean the AFL? 65.94.47.63 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Only to one very small part of the world. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's called Australia (the location these categories are covering), since the AFL is the Australian Football League, which plays Australian Rules Football, which is not soccer (the sport managed by Soccer Australia). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean Football Federation Australia. Nightw 06:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Football only means AFL in one part of Australia - which tends more often than not to refer to that sport as "Rules". In Sydney, Perth, or Brisbane, football means either association football or one of the forms of rugby. Victoria, seen as a fraction of the world, both in terms of area and population, is only a small part. Grutness...wha? 01:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        In Perth, "footy" or "football" means only one thing - AFL. Orderinchaos 10:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Tell that to the Glory supporters. Grutness...wha? 11:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll give you an example that puts that one in perspective. When the West Coast Eagles play a game at Subiaco Oval, the entire train system goes into meltdown, whereas I usually find out about Glory games after the fact. And rugby gets completely ignored, even though we have a team in the Super 14 (locally nicknamed the Western Farce :P). Rugby league's viewed as some weird Eastern States thing which is resisted as vociferously as daylight saving. Orderinchaos 02:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Football" would be ambiguous in the context of Australia, but "association football" shouldn't be. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, it's not ambiguous at all - it's utterly meaningless to most Australians. Orderinchaos 02:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. Nobody calls the game "association football". (I only learnt that name once I started editing here.) The obvious, non-ambiguous, local common name is "soccer". HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I actually learned it at school as one of my primary school teachers was a language enthusiast - learned the origins of a lot of words through him (not *all* of them correct, I might add...) Orderinchaos 06:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It may be worth bringing this to the attention of WP:AWNB. There has been a history of edit warring over the use of "Football (soccer)" and "Association football" in Australian articles. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. These categories should logically be named "soccer players", as that is the common name of the sport in Australia. That said the relevant articles are at Association football in Australia and Australia national association football team and looking over the archives of the requested moves that got them to such titles, it looks like it would cause unnecessary drama to try and move the articles to their common name. As category titles should follow the relevant articles, I guess this CfD makes sense and the categories should be renamed. Personally can't bring myself to support though, as it just feels wrong. In regards to the "football players" vs "footballers", I would prefer "footballers", as it is more concise. Jenks24 (talk) 06:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all with option 2. Nominator's rationale is sound. Nightw 07:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Australian soccer players as that is the term used in Australia. The current name with Australian football at the beginning is especially confusing as it looks like players that play both Australian football and soccer. So a good idea to rename it to something else. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue of the name starting with "Australian football" would be resolved by renaming to one of the two options above, both of which start with "Australian association football". I would support "soccer players" iff there is consensus to rename the main article and main category; until and unless that happens, however, renaming these categories to "soccer players" would make them inconsistent with the rest of the category tree. In short, while I see your point, shouldn't a change from "association football" to "soccer" start with the top-level article and category? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole category tree does not have to be consistent. And Association is no the term used in Australia. THis is better explained by others below. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I ought to clarify here: the "category tree" to which I was referring was Category:Association football in Australia and its subcategories, not Category:Association football as a whole. I completely agree that usage ought to vary (based on local preferences) between the category trees of different countries, but I can't imagine any reason for usage to vary within the Australian football/soccer category tree.
      In any case, it's my hope that someone will start a requested move at Talk:Association football in Australia, and that the outcome of that discussion will decide which term the categories ought to use. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: to Australian soccer players. There are already too many footy codes in Australia and as association is not the norm for this one, it makes it less linguistically natural for native speakers of Australian English. There is Aussie rules football, Gridiron football, Touch football, Rugby league often referred to as footy in NSW and Queensland. Yes, the national organisation has football in the name but that was to bring the name into conformity with FIFA practices and the usage has not been widely adopted because of linguistic confusion. --LauraHale (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment due to the confusion and debate over usage, it is probably best to not only try to standardize the category names but also the relevant article names as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no sport played in Australia commonly known as Association football. The sport referred to by that name in Wikipedia is commonly known as soccer in Australia. This reality for Australia is inconsistent with the rest of the world, so the broader category names incorporating Association football are inconsistent in Australia. Achieving some idealistic consistency in Wikipedia naming conventions must not be allowed to override having Wikipedia reflect the truth about Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed in entirety. Orderinchaos 10:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question on association football versus soccer: A discussion about second- and third-level subcategories of Category:Association football in Australia is not really a suitable venue for changing (again) the convention of the whole category tree. Such discussion belongs at a new CFD for the main category or at Talk:Association football in Australia, perhaps as part of a requested move.
If there is consensus to rename the main article to Soccer in Australia, I will go through the categories again and nominate them all to be changed to use "soccer". Also, if someone initiates a discussion at the article's talk page, I agree that it would make sense to wait for the result of that discussion before processing any more categories within the category tree.
Until and unless that happens, however, is there any reason for usage within the Australian AF/soccer category tree to be inconsistent? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You won't see consensus. You will see editors like myself trying to describe the simple and obvious reality that the sport is commonly known as soccer in Australia, and you will get those fans and administrators of the game who want all Australians to call it football, and insist that football is now the name of the game in Australia, because they have decreed it to be so. I cannot see those two groups achieving consensus any time soon. HiLo48 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sport is actually generally called "football" by the vast majority of its fans and "soccer" by those who are fans of the other three codes - but yes the latter outnumber the former. You know this and your hyper-partisan position and borderline trolling should be declared up front. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. You just virtually agreed with what I said, then called me a troll. Is that reportable as abuse? At all the Victorian schools I have taught at, city and country, the round ball sport is called soccer, by everybody, obviously including those who play it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:56, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "soccer players" - it's the most common and least surprising name, and accommodates the fact that in WA, SA, VIC and TAS "football" means Australian rules football, and in NSW, ACT and QLD it means National Rugby League. The sport in discussion is the No.3 ball game here behind both, and as HiLo and Mattinbgn correctly state, its own fans insist on calling it "football" (often because many of them - not surprising in an immigrant nation - are from countries where it is called "football".) The associations here do have names with Football in them (e.g. "Football Federation Australia"), but *no-one* uses "association football" here, even though it's known by anyone with an etymological understanding that the word "soccer" derives from "association". This is one case where international consistency is not needed - the "Aus soccer" category can happily belong to the "world football" category without either needing to compromise. Orderinchaos 10:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "soccer players"; clearly the common term in Australia. Renaming to the ass.foot. terminology would run contrary to WP:TIES, although category redirect from that to soccer could be created for Australia-specific cats. Dl2000 (talk) 02:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Submit a broader nomination to cover the main article title and the whole tree I've just had a look at the contents Category:Association football in Australia and frankly the tree is all over the place. The immediate sub-categories generally use "association football" (except for Category:Expatriate football managers in Australia), but below that it dissolves into a mess with many sub-categories using either "football (soccer)" or "association football" and some using "football" on its own. The best is Category:Australia national association football team which has all three in it - Category:Australia national association football team managers, Category:Australia international football (soccer) players and Category:Australia national football team seasons. The one term that doesn't seem to be used anywhere in the tree is "soccer" by itself (apart from categories namechecking the National Soccer League).
Introducing a fourth term into the category tree is probably only going to make things worse and I don't think a discussion on just three low level categories is really the place to (re)set convetion. The starting point really needs to be the article Association football in Australia - it was moved there some years ago but without discussion specific to the article at the time. A proper Requested Move discussion on that article, with a bundling of the top level category, would help get some direction on this. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing the term soccer would bring this encyclopaedia closer to reporting reality, rather than some politically correct but inaccurate compromise. HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it would leave unresolved the larger issue of what to do with the rest of the category tree. Whatever happens in this discussion will affect only a very small percentage of Australia-related soccer/football pages. The comments in this CfD suggest that a wider discussion is needed, preferably sooner rather than later. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This outside nomination - which I should note was made entirely in good faith by the nominator in line with normal category naming processes, but without knowledge of the local circumstances - has kind of exposed what is actually rather a mess and needs to be fixed. I'm in agreement with HiLo that the final result should probably be all Australian-centred articles and categories at "soccer". Orderinchaos 06:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was aware that there had been disputes about the naming of the main article but assumed (incorrectly), based on what I perceived to be the stability of the current title (Association football in Australia since early 2008), that the issue was settled. I am prepared to take care of changes to "soccer" in the titles of Australia-related categories if a consensus to rename forms at Talk:Association football in Australia; it would be better, however, if the requested move was initiated by someone who actually supported it rather than as a procedural nomination. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the "(soccer)" qualifier as a matter of accessibility for the people interested in the articles on which the category is seen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Australian association football*" as that is what the Australian professional bodies and players call themselves, and is consistent with the rest of the world. Football Federation Australia was renamed in 2005 to remove the word "Soccer". "wikt:soccer" is slang. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Soccer is clearly not slang in Australia. It's the common name for the game, and very frequently a formal one. Many legally incorporated clubs playing the game are officially called soccer clubs. In most of the AFL side of the Barassi Line at least, towns have a Football Club for Australian Rules and a Soccer Club for the round ball game. I haven't yet seen or heard a professional body or player in Australia call the game association football. The name of the FFA proves that point rather than yours. That an organisation chooses to change its name also does not change the common name. HiLo48 (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 'Soccer: What HiLo48 said. The FFA changed its name because it wanted to bring the name into line with FIFA naming conventions, and an effort to try to get Australians to use the world name for the sport. (This is an example of Australia trying to align with the world instead of the USA.) The usage of football has not taken off. The Footy Show still refers to Aussie rules and Rugby league. I think they had a soccer version during the World Cup. Making it worse, association football appears to be an alternative name for touch football in Australia. See Darwin Touch Football Association as an example. Google test: "association football" site:au: Results: 83,000. soccer site:au: Results: 11,900,000. The soccer usage is much more common. If this requires a name change for articles and categories to be Soccer, I'd support it. --LauraHale (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Comment "Association football appears to be an alternative name for touch football in Australia" No, the term "association" is used in its general sense in your example, in the same way that Victorian Football Association played Aussie Rules and not association football. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Soccer is not the formal name of the sport and is now used only in an informal sense. The vast majority of association football fans in Australia call the sport simply "football". Fans of other codes (which, to be fair is the majority) call the game "soccer" and increasingly this is used only in a derogatory way. There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should use different terminology for Australia than it uses in the rest of the world - i.e. Association Football. The move to use "soccer" here comes across to me as nothing less than an attempt by fans of other football codes to tell fans of association football what their sport must be called! Even if "soccer" is used by a majority of Australians - it still wouldn't be right to ride roughshod over the views of the official body and the fans of football. Note: I am not an association football fan, I have only been to one game in my life. I prefer Aussie Rules and Rugby Union. I just don't think it is right to dictate to other sports what their name should be. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to the second choice for consistency with the existing consensus on articles on the sport in Australia. Camw (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mattinbgn, you are sadly so very, very wrong. Just this morning I was fixing some vandalism at the Waverley Wanderers Soccer Club page. My local suburb has a Soccer club. As I said above, on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, just about every town and suburb has a Football Club playing Aussie Rules and a Soccer Club playing the round ball game. The people who play the game naturally call it soccer for obvious reasons. It's the name of their club! I can't speak so much for the rugby/league side of the line, and I don't know where you live, so maybe we see different perspectives. All those soccer clubs I speak of, and there are hundreds, would be legally registered and incorporated with a soccer club name. That makes it pretty formal and, since the name is the choice of the clubs themselves, hardly a derogatory term. Now, I've already said most of this before, and regard people who ignore truth posted by others while talking nonsense themselves as really pushing a silly (and just plain wrong) POV, and being downright rude. It's probably time you 1) faced the truth and 2) showed some respect for what others post here, especially when its the truth. HiLo48 (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Australia is not special in this regard. Japan is another country which used to have a league called a Soccer League. Wikipedia categories for Japan no longer use the word soccer. see e.g. Tochigi S.C., Sagawa Printing S.C., Nippon Steel Yawata S.C.. There are clubs across the world, at every level, which use (or have used) the word "soccer" in their title, yet they play in a football league, or their top level division is called football. e.g. Soccer Club Riverball, Soccer Club Kuopio Futis-98, Feni Soccer Club, Thunderbird Soccer Club, Oio Soccer Club, Petone Soccer Club, Kodaikanal Soccer Club, Seoul International Soccer Club. The only countries which use the word soccer at the top level division are Canada and U.S. (inc. American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico), and N.Z. and a few Pacific islands like Niue and Palau. PNG is also migrating to using football instead of soccer. South Africa previously used football, now has a league name of soccer, however their club names have always been football. If you look at Category:Victorian Premier League teams (and the categories for the lower divisions), you will see a majority, and growing, number are called football clubs. The only state football league where clubs use soccer more often that football is over in Western Australia. And when we go to the top level, Category:A-League teams, they are all football clubs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Thanks for agreeing with me that Mattinbgn is wrong. We DO have plenty of soccer clubs. And it's NOT an informal name, nor derogatory. (I note that you didn't discuss the legal aspects of the use of the name.) I haven't yet seen a sane reply to the point that anyone trying to call the round ball game football where another sport is called precisely that would be off their brain, so they wisely don't do it. The round ball game is inevitably called soccer in those situations, by players, fans and the media. Only a very stubborn fool would argue otherwise. HiLo48 (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have initiated a Requested Move for the main article Association football in Australia in the hope that we can get some wider clarity on this one. For this discussion I suggest we wait for the RM outcome; then either rename or keep the categories here to match the main article location. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strewth! Does that we mean we have to go through all this again somewhere else? I wish Wikipedia had a better way of preventing the promulgation of nonsense. That new discussion has already had one silly post (the only one opposing) acting as if a handful of purely Sydney based media outlets IS "the Australian sports media". Soccer obsessives don't debate very well, or honestly. HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "soccer players", obviously. More confusingly this the notion that elsewhere on Wikipedia, calling soccer soccer is "POV" or an "agenda", and can get you blocked. Of course, the only agenda stems from when someone at Soccer Australia woke up one morning and decided they been calling their own sport, league, national team and clubs by the wrong name for decades. Still kudos to them for getting anyone to fall into line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.52.75 (talk • contribs) 2011-07-09T09:07:43
Rename all to soccer players Now that the main article has been moved to Soccer in Australia the category tree should match it. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2011 (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.

June 28

Category:People from Singapore

Category:Cotswold

Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and occupation

Category:American boxers by ethnicity

Category:Boxers by ethnicity

Category:Pre-Columbian

Category:Airborne divisions of Great Britain

Category:Bisexual clown painters

Category:Future Boy Conan

Category:Amakusa 1637

Category:Zetsuai

Category:Asbury College alumni

Category:Moscow-City

Category:UNRWA officials

Category:Australian football (soccer) players