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:do not rename as nominated; a separate follow-up nomination to consider Occuli's slight modification suggestion could be made. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Naturally, several players within "Category:Rugby league players in France by club" are no longer in France, rendering its name totally inappropriate. For "Rugby league players in [Country] by club" to work, articles would have to be constantly monitored for the player's whereabouts and categories changed to reflect their movements. That was never the idea. The point of these categories is to break up what would be a hugely overpopulated "Category:Rugby league players by club" into subcategories of clubs (not players) in different countries. Players change country. Clubs do not. Simple. This nomination extends to any similarly named subcategories of "Category:Rugby league players by club" and possibly even those of other sports, as my attempt to fix the situation was reverted apparently because Association football uses this poorly thought out format (or maybe it works for them because editors do constantly monitor player movements and change their categories, I don't know). Jeff79 (talk) 05:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd suggest the nomination should also cover the following categories;
Comment - So you're saying what it comes down to is a grammatical/aesthetic choice between players 'in France by club' (preposition + Noun + preposition + noun), which has the added bonus of implying the meaning I thought it had, or 'by French club' (preposition + adjective + noun) which is shorter and less ambiguous.--Jeff79 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not imply what you think, which is why I said that your inference was erroneous. Further, we have been systematically replacing 'French foos' with 'Foos in France' except when 'French' means 'nationality', and football clubs have no nationality. You could go for "Rugby league players by club in New Zealand". (Personally I think it's far too much trouble to bother about.) Occuli (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're citing WP:NCCAT#Sport, as we're categorising people here, not sports. I've still heard no sound argument against using adjectives 'French' or 'Australian' to describe a club. Anyway, good to know you now agree with me without actually agreeing with me.--Jeff79 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the adjectives are used almost always in the first sentence of articles about individual clubs. This strengthen Jeff's case, imo. Pichpich (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You seem to be defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo. Would you care to address the points made above? I submit that all the categories you mention need to be changed too. Or do you mean that this needs to be a wider nomination encompassing those categories before you'll discuss it?--Jeff79 (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm defending the status quo because I like the status quo. It neatly categorizes the sport players by their location and places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be. That doesn't mean I dislike the suggested approach, and I think that if it gains traction it should be applied to the other such categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the status quo "neatly categorizes the sport players by their location" and this is precisely what is wrong with it. We are not categorising the players by their location, but by their club (see above). Avoiding this confusion is the reason why 'Category:[moveable things] in [place]' appears never to be used in Wikipedia. 'Category:Rugby league players by French club' also "places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be".--Jeff79 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 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.
(wow, I created this category seven years ago) We've often agreed that the best reason to not apply the catname = article name rule in every instance is because the category system needs greater clarity and disambiguation than article names do. So that's the only question here, if Category:NBC would be sufficiently clear, given all the potential meanings. If the decision is to rename, Category:CBS television network should also follow. postdlf (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate suggestion - Being that Category:NBC would likely be ambiguous (though the current placement of the article does indicate a strong primary topic), why not spell out the initialism with Category:National Broadcasting Company?
It has the advantage of being a) correct, as that remains the full name of the company (unlike CBS which is an orphan initialism), b) unambiguous (no other article has that tile, which is a redirect to NBC) and c) more accurate than the current name (the category also includes daughter cats on the company's former radio operations, which are not television, of course).
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete I don't think it's reasonable to categorize video games according to the ways in which players can lose lives. It's not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 00:04, 4 October 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.
