Category:Associations for pulmonology and respiratory therapy
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 22:48, 20 September 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.
Category:Artificial scripts used in natural languages
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) 22:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The rationale for inclusion here is very unclear. All scripts are artificial when they are invented begin. Some catch on, like Hangul and Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, and others do not, like Deseret and Shavian.
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: A crazy thing just happened. I discovered that i created this category myself once and completely forgot it. Well, i proclaim that i shouldn't have created it. --
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll take that as a delete. And since you're the sole author, I've marked it for speedy deletion accordingly.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I've recreated it. The articles and categories linking to it should have been recategorized. —
kwami (
talk) 22:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The whole notion of "artificial" and "Natural" languages is hard to define. Articifical means made by man, and all language is made by man so what a natural language is can be debated to some extent. This also applies to scripts.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:54, 18 September 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.
Category:User
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) 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete The intended scope of this category is unclear and looking at the contributions history of the creator, I'm tempted to view it as a simple experiment. What is clear though, is that the other members of this category have no idea that they are members. Most linked to
Category:User months if not years ago whereas the present incarnation of the category dates back to last week.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The inclusion criteria is unclear. If we were to take it to include all users, the category would be so huge it would be useless.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rainmaking
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 C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the stated scope of the category. (The aim is to include articles related to
rainmaking (ritual) and not
rainmaking)
Pichpich (
talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename-It's best to rename.
Smallman12q (
talk) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename Category is about articles on the belief, and does not include all ways of making rain such as chemical means
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:58, 13 September 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.
Category:That's ridiculous. It's not even funny.
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) 22:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete It's pretty clear that there's not enough material to create a category for
Kingdom of Loathing and it's even clearer that such a category would be called "Kingdom of Loathing" and not "That's ridiculous. It's not even funny."
Pichpich (
talk) 17:04, 12 September 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.
Category:Japanese writers' templates
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 merge C2A.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Speedy merge as obvious duplication due to a typo.
Pichpich (
talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I fixed the template. It was a typo - wondered why it came up red. The category can be deleted.
Truthkeeper (
talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as empty with creator's consent. - –
Fayenatic(talk) 20:01, 14 September 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.
Category:Women's association football players
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 rename.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category and its subcats were recently moved from "Female association football players" to "Women's association football players" and from "<Nationality> female footballers (soccer players)" to "<Nationality> women's footballers (soccer players)". This strikes me as extremely odd. Why use the possessive here? These players do not belong to women; rather, they are female. Using "female" would seem to fit better with our other gender-based categories like
Category:Female economists. We don't say "women's economists", do we? Of course not; that would imply that the economists in question work only for women, or that they focus only on economic issues relating to women. No explanation for the recent move is apparent; Cydebot did the moves without comment.
PowersT 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, the main article is where it is because there's no other reasonable title -- "Association football as played by women"? But for categories dealing with players, what's important is not that they play "women's association football" -- which is pretty much indistinguishable from "men's association football" -- but that they are women who play association football.
PowersT 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Do not rename this particular category. Since the sport is women's association football, I think it makes sense to name the category for players after the sport. If there's an issue with the subcategories, you might want to contact
User:Black Falcon—I think he was the speedy nominator of those.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
"Women's association football" is not a sport. "Association football" is a sport, and it is played by the female players in this category.
PowersT 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Sure it is, unless you're suggesting that a man could play in the women's game. Many countries have a separate code of laws (rules) for the women's game. FIFA doesn't distinguish yet, but they haven't exactly been a paragon of enlightenment in dealing with the women's game.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
So in the event that a woman played a game in a men's league, you would move her article out of this category tree and into a category with her male countrymen? That strikes me as extremely odd.
PowersT 02:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, the point is that in association football that does not happen. Women play on separate teams and in separate leagues, and often they have separate rules. If men and women play together on the same teams and the same leagues, then I would question the need to separate women from men at all in categorizing people who play the sport. Men and women compete against each other in Scrabble, and we don't subdivide
Category:Scrabble players by gender. Thus, I see this category as essentially a categorization by sport, not a categorization by the intersection of gender and sport.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
But as I stated above, I question your very premise that at their heart these are categorizations by gender. If men and women compete together in any given sport, I don't think they should be separated by gender at all. (But whether they are or not is essentially an issue left to the whim of any particular editor; but what exists is not necessarily the correct approach. But in any case here, it's clear that the correspondence between female footballers and those who play women's football is going to essentially be 1:1, so I don't think the current name is a problem.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how you can question it when it's quite clear from the category structure, and from the names of the parallel categories. If this category was merely "people who play soccer-for-women", then it wouldn't be in the
Category:Women tree.
PowersT 22:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Sure it would be. Only females play women's soccer.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Bit of a circular argument, isn't that?
PowersT 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Not really, if one can accept that only women play women's football. It's only circular because the gender of those who play the sport is the reason why the sport is called what it is called—females play it so it's "women's" football. It's not brain surgery or anything.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. The vast majority of subcats of
Category:Sportswomen by sport are of the form "Female <sport> players" (or "Female <sport>ers"). No one has yet giving a compelling reason why this category should be different.
PowersT 12:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I believe that previous efforts to standardize on one over the other have resulted in a consensus of change them on a case by case basis.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps not in isolation, but considering the entire ball of wax, I would think it's some of the other categories that should be renamed, not these ones.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Women's sports players are refered to as women. Thus we have women's basketball, women's volleyball and so on. There is no reason to not follow this precedent with football. I have always seen it refered to as women's soccer, and the women's world cup, never female soccer and the female world cup.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The vast majority of these categories should be switched over to women's. The ones that have not should be. The current category tree is largely flawed.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep - Like Good Ol'factory, I view this as an intersection of sport (women's association football) and role (players) rather than a triple-intersection of gender (female), sport (association football) and role (players). Even though the rules of the game are largely the same, the sport of women's association football – consisting of its competitions, teams, statistics and culture – is basically separate from traditional (men's) association football. Thus, and to address the issue of grammar, this is a category of 'players of women's association football' (I've added a category description to help clarify this). -- Black Falcon(
talk) 06:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
How can you say it's a separate sport? The rules are not just largely the same, they're exactly the same. They use the same code and the same grounds and the same traditions.
Women's association football is about organization and history, not about the rules of the sport. If it was a separate sport, it would include details on how it's played.
PowersT 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Outside of FIFA, there are some national organizations that have adopted modified rules. For example, some allow the players to touch the ball with their forearm or back of the hand if doing so was judged to be a deliberate action to protect the breasts.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It may be the same game, mostly (see above), but I believe it's fair to say it's a separate sport. It has separate clubs and teams, separate leagues, separate competitions, and (to a certain extent) a separate culture and history and, in many cases, faces
unique issues. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 02:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't think the parent–child categorization system needs to work that strictly. There are definitely situations where a parent–child setup does not "work" in a perfectly logical manner, as here. But I also think it's OK to adopt a flexible system in which we try to set up parent–child relationships that very roughly correspond to where readers might expect the information to be found. I think that most readers would probably expect to find information about women football players in the women sportsperson tree and in the association footballers tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:47, 20 September 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.
Categories:Copyright laws and Intellectual property laws of the European Union
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 C2C.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:12, 14 September 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.
Category:Associations for pulmonology and respiratory therapy
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 22:48, 20 September 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.
Category:Artificial scripts used in natural languages
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) 22:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The rationale for inclusion here is very unclear. All scripts are artificial when they are invented begin. Some catch on, like Hangul and Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics, and others do not, like Deseret and Shavian.
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment: A crazy thing just happened. I discovered that i created this category myself once and completely forgot it. Well, i proclaim that i shouldn't have created it. --
Amir E. Aharoni (
talk) 19:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll take that as a delete. And since you're the sole author, I've marked it for speedy deletion accordingly.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I've recreated it. The articles and categories linking to it should have been recategorized. —
kwami (
talk) 22:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The whole notion of "artificial" and "Natural" languages is hard to define. Articifical means made by man, and all language is made by man so what a natural language is can be debated to some extent. This also applies to scripts.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:54, 18 September 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.
Category:User
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) 22:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete The intended scope of this category is unclear and looking at the contributions history of the creator, I'm tempted to view it as a simple experiment. What is clear though, is that the other members of this category have no idea that they are members. Most linked to
Category:User months if not years ago whereas the present incarnation of the category dates back to last week.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete The inclusion criteria is unclear. If we were to take it to include all users, the category would be so huge it would be useless.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Rainmaking
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 C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename to match the stated scope of the category. (The aim is to include articles related to
rainmaking (ritual) and not
rainmaking)
Pichpich (
talk) 19:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename-It's best to rename.
Smallman12q (
talk) 01:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename Category is about articles on the belief, and does not include all ways of making rain such as chemical means
Curb Chain (
talk) 05:58, 13 September 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.
Category:That's ridiculous. It's not even funny.
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) 22:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete It's pretty clear that there's not enough material to create a category for
Kingdom of Loathing and it's even clearer that such a category would be called "Kingdom of Loathing" and not "That's ridiculous. It's not even funny."
Pichpich (
talk) 17:04, 12 September 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.
Category:Japanese writers' templates
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 merge C2A.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Speedy merge as obvious duplication due to a typo.
Pichpich (
talk) 16:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I fixed the template. It was a typo - wondered why it came up red. The category can be deleted.
Truthkeeper (
talk) 16:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as empty with creator's consent. - –
Fayenatic(talk) 20:01, 14 September 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.
Category:Women's association football players
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 rename.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 22:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This category and its subcats were recently moved from "Female association football players" to "Women's association football players" and from "<Nationality> female footballers (soccer players)" to "<Nationality> women's footballers (soccer players)". This strikes me as extremely odd. Why use the possessive here? These players do not belong to women; rather, they are female. Using "female" would seem to fit better with our other gender-based categories like
Category:Female economists. We don't say "women's economists", do we? Of course not; that would imply that the economists in question work only for women, or that they focus only on economic issues relating to women. No explanation for the recent move is apparent; Cydebot did the moves without comment.
PowersT 12:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Yes, the main article is where it is because there's no other reasonable title -- "Association football as played by women"? But for categories dealing with players, what's important is not that they play "women's association football" -- which is pretty much indistinguishable from "men's association football" -- but that they are women who play association football.
PowersT 12:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Do not rename this particular category. Since the sport is women's association football, I think it makes sense to name the category for players after the sport. If there's an issue with the subcategories, you might want to contact
User:Black Falcon—I think he was the speedy nominator of those.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
"Women's association football" is not a sport. "Association football" is a sport, and it is played by the female players in this category.
PowersT 17:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Sure it is, unless you're suggesting that a man could play in the women's game. Many countries have a separate code of laws (rules) for the women's game. FIFA doesn't distinguish yet, but they haven't exactly been a paragon of enlightenment in dealing with the women's game.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)reply
So in the event that a woman played a game in a men's league, you would move her article out of this category tree and into a category with her male countrymen? That strikes me as extremely odd.
PowersT 02:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, the point is that in association football that does not happen. Women play on separate teams and in separate leagues, and often they have separate rules. If men and women play together on the same teams and the same leagues, then I would question the need to separate women from men at all in categorizing people who play the sport. Men and women compete against each other in Scrabble, and we don't subdivide
Category:Scrabble players by gender. Thus, I see this category as essentially a categorization by sport, not a categorization by the intersection of gender and sport.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
But as I stated above, I question your very premise that at their heart these are categorizations by gender. If men and women compete together in any given sport, I don't think they should be separated by gender at all. (But whether they are or not is essentially an issue left to the whim of any particular editor; but what exists is not necessarily the correct approach. But in any case here, it's clear that the correspondence between female footballers and those who play women's football is going to essentially be 1:1, so I don't think the current name is a problem.)
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure how you can question it when it's quite clear from the category structure, and from the names of the parallel categories. If this category was merely "people who play soccer-for-women", then it wouldn't be in the
Category:Women tree.
PowersT 22:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Sure it would be. Only females play women's soccer.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Bit of a circular argument, isn't that?
PowersT 12:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Not really, if one can accept that only women play women's football. It's only circular because the gender of those who play the sport is the reason why the sport is called what it is called—females play it so it's "women's" football. It's not brain surgery or anything.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. The vast majority of subcats of
Category:Sportswomen by sport are of the form "Female <sport> players" (or "Female <sport>ers"). No one has yet giving a compelling reason why this category should be different.
PowersT 12:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I believe that previous efforts to standardize on one over the other have resulted in a consensus of change them on a case by case basis.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Perhaps not in isolation, but considering the entire ball of wax, I would think it's some of the other categories that should be renamed, not these ones.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Women's sports players are refered to as women. Thus we have women's basketball, women's volleyball and so on. There is no reason to not follow this precedent with football. I have always seen it refered to as women's soccer, and the women's world cup, never female soccer and the female world cup.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment The vast majority of these categories should be switched over to women's. The ones that have not should be. The current category tree is largely flawed.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 05:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep - Like Good Ol'factory, I view this as an intersection of sport (women's association football) and role (players) rather than a triple-intersection of gender (female), sport (association football) and role (players). Even though the rules of the game are largely the same, the sport of women's association football – consisting of its competitions, teams, statistics and culture – is basically separate from traditional (men's) association football. Thus, and to address the issue of grammar, this is a category of 'players of women's association football' (I've added a category description to help clarify this). -- Black Falcon(
talk) 06:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)reply
How can you say it's a separate sport? The rules are not just largely the same, they're exactly the same. They use the same code and the same grounds and the same traditions.
Women's association football is about organization and history, not about the rules of the sport. If it was a separate sport, it would include details on how it's played.
PowersT 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Outside of FIFA, there are some national organizations that have adopted modified rules. For example, some allow the players to touch the ball with their forearm or back of the hand if doing so was judged to be a deliberate action to protect the breasts.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
It may be the same game, mostly (see above), but I believe it's fair to say it's a separate sport. It has separate clubs and teams, separate leagues, separate competitions, and (to a certain extent) a separate culture and history and, in many cases, faces
unique issues. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 02:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I don't think the parent–child categorization system needs to work that strictly. There are definitely situations where a parent–child setup does not "work" in a perfectly logical manner, as here. But I also think it's OK to adopt a flexible system in which we try to set up parent–child relationships that very roughly correspond to where readers might expect the information to be found. I think that most readers would probably expect to find information about women football players in the women sportsperson tree and in the association footballers tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:47, 20 September 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.
Categories:Copyright laws and Intellectual property laws of the European Union
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 C2C.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:12, 14 September 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.