Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Victoria (Australia) cricketers

Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers

 * 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: having been just reminded that IAR exists for a reason, I think I'll go out on a limb and rename this to Category: Victoria (Australia (country)) (cricket (sport (activity)) team) cricket (sport (activity)) players, with thanks to Andrew Nixon for the idea.  And as this is just for cricketers for the victoria team, and not from Victoria, Australia, would anyone object to a little cleanup?  I saw quite a few articles that must have been added after the last rename, because they contain no references to the Victorian Bushrangers, but rather, just the Australia national cricket team.  . Kbdank71 20:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers to Category:Victoria cricketers
 * Nominator's rationale: In one of Wikipedia's less shining moments, a decision was made here at CfD to rename all categories relating to the Australian state of Victoria to use the term "Victoria (Australia)". (See Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5 for the discussion). These categories were mass-nominated with the nominator showing little concern to actually analysing the affected categories to see if there was actually any ambiguity to be disambiguated. The discussion, pushed through as a pseudo-speedy rename, of course predictably ignored discussion from those editors who actually work with the categories and the admin, when closing the discussion in favour of the rename, added his 2c worth of sarcasm&mdash;'personally, I love the argument "I don't care what the stupid policy says"'&mdash;conveniently forgetting WP:IAR exists for a reason.

Anyway, the results of this rather poor nomination and decision are starting to come in. In a tiny minority of cases, the rename has addressed an ambiguity and has been worthwhile. In the vast majority of cases the rename has had no effect other than making the category name longer and making it more difficult for new editors to find the correct category name. In some cases, however, the rename has been lead to a positively poorer outcome and the above is one of these cases. If the nominator had taken the time to point out a renaming rationale for each category rename, we wouldn't need to be here today, but alas, the flawed CfD procedure means we are back here today to fix this error.

No doubt, the nominating editor and closing administrator saw Category:Victoria cricketers and Category:Cricketers from Victoria as synonymous and thus a rename to Category:Victoria (Australia) cricketers would be the same as a Category:Cricketers from Victoria (Australia). This is incorrect and an editor with knowledge of either cricket or Australia would have been able to point this out had they been given the opportunity to have a say without the distraction of a mass nomination. The term "Victoria cricketers" does not refer to cricketers from the geographical location known as the state of Victoria but instead cricketers who have played for the Victoria cricket team or in its modern guise Victorian Bushrangers. Its parent category is Category:Players in Australian domestic cricket by team not Category:Cricketers from Australia by state. As such, this is analogous with Category:Liverpool F.C. players rather than Category:People from Liverpool lets say. In some other examples, the Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan belongs in Category:New South Wales cricketers but not in a category called Category:Cricketers from New South Wales, the Barbadian cricketer Garry Sobers belongs in Category:South Australia cricketers but not in a category called Category:Cricketers from South Australia and so on.

Note that Category:Victoria cricketers is entirely unambiguous, certainly as unambiguous as, say, Category:Sussex cricketers which again refers to cricketers who play for Sussex County Cricket Club, not cricketers from the county of Sussex. There is no other cricket team called "Victoria" that is remotely likely to produce cricketers notable enough for an article. To head off any proposal to rename to Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers, this would create an anachronism; Harry Trott, Hugh Trumble, Warwick Armstrong and Ian Johnson did not play for any institution called "Victorian Bushrangers", a modern, rather peurile marketing invention. The article name is another bugbear that needs fixing at some time

Normally, I would just go ahead and rename the category back to its correct name, but my previous experience here at CfD has convinced me that this is not a wise thing to do if I want to avoid accusations of whining, "owning" and other assorted wiki-crimes. Indeed the closing administrator gave his opinion on attempting to find common sense solutions where following policy creates problems. Instead, I will jump through the hoops here and submit the rename request here to this hopelessly flawed CfD process with little expectation of a suitable solution. Mattinbgn\talk 23:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you saying that there are no Victoria, British Columbia cricketers?  On the surface this proposal seems to be ambiguous.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment None that are even likely to be close to notable. On the off chance there are any, then a category such as Category:Cricketers from Victoria, British Columbia. This could be done while keeping Category:Victoria cricketers for the large category of actually notable cricketers playing for a professional team, Victoria. There is no need to disambiguate for every possible ambiguity, else Category:Sussex cricketers would require disambiguation to distinguish it from cricketers from the various Sussex counties in the US&mdash;never mind that there are not likely to be any that would justify a separate category for them. --


 * Rename. To answer Vegaswikian, there is no first-class cricket team called Victoria, British Columbia.  As Mattinbgn has clearly pointed out, Victoria in this context is an Australian team that represents a state, just as the Minnesota Vikings team represents its state.  It is absolute nonsense to include (Australia) when the institution in question is a team with a unique title.  You might as well have a category called category:New York (America) baseballers to avoid confusion with a hypothetical baseball team in York.  BlackJack | talk page 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. A search on the CricketArchive website reveals 2706 results for teams with a name containing Victoria. Of these 8 are for teams that happen to have Victoria as part of their name (eg. Manchester Victoria), 6 are for Victoria College in Egypt and six are for Victoria, BC. The other 2686 all refer to the Victoria Bushrangers or their associated youth, women's and second teams. As far as I'm aware, disambiguation is there to prevent confusion, but if one usage is the dominant usage (eg. we have Paris go to the French capital city rather than a disambiguation page that includes Paris, Texas and Paris, Yukon) then that takes priority. In cricket, Victoria in Australia is quite clearly the dominant usage, so should not have any disambiguation. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment. This dominance being on account of the fact that the Victoria team in Australia plays first-class cricket while the others do not.  A category about, say, Manchester Victoria CC probably could not be sustained because of WP:N, even if a number of first-class cricketers had actually played for the team.  The only possible interpretation of a category called category:Victoria cricketers is that it concerns the Australian team called Victoria.  WP:UCS was largely overlooked in Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5 so let us hope that it prevails in this discussion.  BlackJack | talk page 08:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename. Disambiguation is not required in this case as the Australian state is the only prominent team that uses the name, and certainly the only first-class one as demonstrated above. There could be no possible confusion for a reader. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – Wikipedia is global. The average reader has no idea which Victoria is being referred to in 'Victoria cricketer'. W G Grace played during the reign of Victoria, for instance. ('Sussex cricketers' etc should also be renamed, to 'Sussex County Cricket Club players'. There is no confusion between York and New York.) Occuli (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Cricket is global and when referring to the "average reader" perhaps people should consider that the encyclopedia in general and cricket articles in particular have a readership beyond the shores of North America. The millions of Anglophone Indian readers for a start would be quite of what Victoria is meant in this category name. The reference to Cricketers in the Victorian age is grasping at straws (for a start the category would be called "Victorian cricketers" and not "Victoria cricketers" and a further example of the way discussion at CfD seems to ignore common sense. My big fear when citing the Sussex example was that someone would suggest exactly what you have. What would such a rename actually achieve? It certainly would not resolve any ambiguity; it being unlikely that there would be any other reading of the category name unless one was actively looking to find one. If there is a way to create a longer, more complicated name for a category, you can guarantee that CfD will find it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comment. I'm quite sure the average reader can understand context and thereby tell the difference between a place (in fact, a team) and a queen.  We do have temporal categories about Victorian players but they are named by span of years (e.g., 1816 to 1863).  Your suggestion that "Sussex cricketers" should be called "Sussex County Cricket Club players" completely misses the very important historical point that teams called Sussex have been active since the 17th century but Sussex CCC was not founded until 1839 and Sussex players before then did not play for the club.  As for confusion between York and New York, the thick average reader that you have identified probably does not know the difference: he probably thinks "new" is an adjective as in "rookie", which serves to illustrate how ridiculous it is possible to be when trying to impose a global disambiguation policy.  Please read WP:IAR and WP:UCS.  BlackJack | talk page 14:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep current name. Any use of "Victoria" can be ambiguous, despite the nominator's protestations to the contrary. Uses of Victoria in category names should be, and generally are, treated in a similar manner as "Georgia (country)" and "Georgia (U.S. state)" categories. Occuli's point about WP being global is also well made; although some Australian Wikipedians may be annoyed by the usage, it is generally helpful for the vast majority of users. I understand the nominator's distinction between people from the place and people from the team; I'm just not sure it's worth the bother to split hairs in this manner. Perhaps one option could be to simply use Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers to match the main article, with an explanation that not all players included played under the name "Bushrangers". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Instead of making sweeping generalisations, why not focus on the case in point?  If you read the comments above by people who actually use this category you may begin to understand that it concerns a cricket club, not a state or a queen, and that this club has a unique name in the context of first-class cricket.  Furthermore, we have already had Occuli defining the intelligence of the average reader and now you announcing what is best for the "vast majority of users".  Who do you think you are?  Read WP:IAR and especially WP:UCS.  BlackJack | talk page 06:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I'm a WP user. Who do you think you are? I'm as entitled to my opinions as you are, and I think the general rule should be applied here. I've already addressed the place vs. club issue. You or some Wikiproject don't own the category, so I suggest you stop acting like you might. It's also not terribly helpful to tell people to "[r]ead WP:IAR and especially WP:UCS", thereby implying that they are not using common sense. A little humility and a belief that perhaps—just perhaps—others might have legitimate views seems in order here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A little humility from someone who speaks for "the vast majority of users"? And when you talk about the views of other site users, perhaps we should look very seriously about how consensus on the CfD pages seems to rest with those who use the pages on a regular basis and who all seem to crop up time and time again whenever there is anything "controversial" to be discussed.  You are quite right that the legitimate views of other users must be presented besides those who like to interpret "policy" despite knowing absolutely nothing about the subject-matter.  The trouble is that these other users only take part in CfD if a topic is relevant to their area of interest, a scenario which tends to leave the field open to the CfD specialists.  BlackJack | talk page 07:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My opinion about what would be helpful for the vast majority of users was, um, an opinion. I.e., I didn't claim to be speaking for anyone else. A closer reading of my comment would probably reveal that, but if that wasn't self-evident, then I state so here explicitly. Incidentally, your comment is the second time you've implied that I don't know anything about the topic; the first being when you suggested that I'm not among the users who "actually use" the category. I'm curious as to how you "know" this or have any knowledge whatsoever about my knowledge background. Presumptuous, if nothing else. Boring, at worst. I've expressed my opinion; I find it fascinating that others can't resist the need to try to refute an opinion when it conflicts with their own. Not sure where you're going with your broader point about CfDs, but this doesn't seem like an appropriate forum for that discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A user's contribs record is useful for getting an idea of where his interests lie and I can't see anything about cricket in yours so I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you are not a cricket expert. My apologies if you are in fact Gary Sobers or whoever.  As for refuting others' opinions, I would remind you of your statement above: Any use of "Victoria" can be ambiguous, despite the nominator's protestations to the contrary.  Protestations or Mattinbgn's opinions?  You were the nominator of Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5 and you were supported by Occuli and Vegaswikian who have have both unsurprisingly resurfaced in this discussion.  We're still waiting for Peterkingiron to make his customary appearance.  What it means is that these discussions have a regular cast and that is not a good state of affairs when people with a direct interest in the subject-matter are striving to improve the projects they are working on for the benefit of their readers.  I agree this is not the forum but it is an issue and the site must do something to give more (not total) control over categorisation to the people who are actually working with the categories.  But, as you say, that is for another forum.  BlackJack | talk page 07:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't presume to judge a person's knowledge based on their activity on WP. Some users have a life that's broader than WP, and I would think part of assuming good faith is not making negative assumptions about their background knowledge. That's just me, though. I don't particularly mind if anyone protests someone else's opinion, and no doubt everyone does it from time to time. Certainly it's to be expected in an initial comment, which is what you quoted. I just find the Pop-up Pirate phenomenon interesting, that's all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your pop-up pirate seems to describe your own reaction to this nomination given that it exposes the serious errors evident in Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 5, which was nominated and vigorously defended by yourself. BlackJack | talk page 09:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've slightly misread it then. It typically happens when someone pops up over and over again to multiple comments from multiple users. I made one comment and had multiple pirates boarding. One comment does not a pop-up pirate make. But in any case, there's no shame to being a PPP; many editors do it. Who wouldn't want to be a pirate? I know I would. Arghh! Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, but as demonstrated above there simply is no ambiguity for Victoria in the context of cricket. Victoria in Australia is by far the dominant usage for cricket (99% of uses as shown above) and should therefore have no disambiguation. I refer you to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, more for articles but states, "When there is a well-known primary topic for an ambiguous term, name or phrase, much more used than any other (significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that term or phrase should either be used for the title of the article on that topic or redirect to that article." I think that the same applies here. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about what? That I have an opinion? I think you may have missed my point. I'm in favour of a broad application across categories. That debate's been had before, and I favour the outcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't missed your point at all. I'm simply pointing out that, despite what you think, there is no ambiguity in having the name Category Victoria cricketers as within the context of cricket it refers to the Australian state and nowhere else almost 100% of the time. This may change in future I accept, but at the moment there is one clear primary topic for this usually ambiguous term and therefore no disambiguation is required per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, it still looks like you have, because ambiguity in this specific case was not my main point. Carry on, however—making the same point multiple times to multiple users never did any real harm, I suppose. And what were you "sorry" for? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I quote, "Any use of "Victoria" can be ambiguous". So if ambiguity is not your point, just what is? What is your reason for having Category: Victoria (Australia) cricketers as opposed to Category: Victoria cricketers? As for what I'm sorry for, I guess I'm sorry that you fail to see the common sense solution here. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All you have to do is read my entire comments, not just selected quotes you want to pull out. As I said, ambiguity in this specific case was not my main point. I don't think it's particularly insightful to suggest that another user is failing to see or use "common sense". Users (as well as journalists, judges, and other commentators) often use "common sense" when what they really mean is "my opinion". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (back to left) Forgive me, it's early in the morning and I can't quite make out where on here you've given a reason not related to ambiguity even after reading all your comments. Could you possibly point it out to me? Andrew nixon (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's the distinction between ambiguity in this particular case vs. ambiguity across all cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not getting it here... what's the reason not related to ambiguity? Let me read your reason in a simple sentence. Perhaps I'm not as smart as you and need it in plain English, something like "I think the category should be Category: Victoria (Australia) cricketers and not Category: Victoria cricketers because... (Insert reason not related to ambiguity here)". I would appreciate it. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is related to ambiguity, just not necessarily to ambiguity in this particular case: ambiguity in this particular case vs. ambiguity across all cases. I believe most uses of Victoria in category names should be disambiguated. Anyways, it's not my intention to hijack the entire discussion here over a misunderstanding like this and I hope other users don't hesitate to comment based on the length of this back-and-forth: perhaps we could agree to move it to the talk page? Good Ol’factory (talk)
 * I'll stop this "back and forth", though I was just trying to get your actual reason for wanting to disambiguate in this case. I do notice however that you accept that some uses of Victoria do not need to be disambiguated. My point is that this is one of them. As already established the Australian state is by far the primary usage in this instance, hence there should be no disambiguation. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think I understand your point. I disagree that DAB should not be used based on an argument of primary usage; that discussion has been had in the context of categories for Victoria and it was decided otherwise. The only ones I wouldn't DAB are the ones that use "Victoria" as part of an official name of an organisation, like Category:TAFE Victoria. Perhaps one option could be to simply use Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers to match the main article, with an explanation that not all players included played under the name "Bushrangers". Feel free to move this extended discussion within the discussion to the talk page if you think it can be moved there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Victorian Bushrangers" is not now and has never been the name of the Victoria cricket team, which is and remains simply "Victoria". As I stated clearly in my nomination the term "Victorian Bushrangers" is a marketing gimmick only and I intend to address the article name in turn. In Australia (unlike the US) it is not customary to officially add the team nickname to the team name; see Hawthorn Football Club, aka the "Hawthorn Hawks". Cricinfo, who claim to be the world's largest single sport website and with some claim to authority through simple ubiquity, call their team page simply "Victoria". CricketArchive, who claim to have "the most comprehensive database on the internet with scorecards of all First-class matches, ListA matches, Women's Tests and ODIs, ICC Trophy matches and Under-19 'Tests' and 'ODIs' and much more" use the team name of "Victoria" when listing the teams of modern-day player Peter Siddle. Indeed the "Victorian Bushrangers" is not actually used by Cricket Australia or Cricket Victoria, who both use the term "VB Bushrangers"; the brewers of VB having purchased naming rights for the season&mdash;no doubt there will be a new marketing name for next season. Note that the "VB Bushrangers" is not an sponsors appendage on the marketing name of "Victoria Bushrangers"; it is the entire and complete marketing name, note the contrast at the Cricket Australia website with "XXXX Queensland Bulls" and "PKF Tasmania Tigers" where the sponsor's name is an appendage. Renaming the article and category every season to cater to the whims of sponsors, to my mind is not an acceptable solution. Further, perhaps someone will explain to me how it is preferable to create an anachronism (with the associated explanation) to avoid an ambiguity that doesn't exist. Wouldn't it be easier to simply explain any ambiguity and leave the category name as simple and clear as possible? -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I made the suggestion was because it's not atypical to have category names reflect the main article name. If the main article is misnamed, in your opinion, then the first usual step is to get the main article renamed. If there is a consensus to rename the main article, then it's usually fairly straightforward to get the category name to follow. It's a lot harder to argue that the category name should be such-and-such if the article name already has the name you are proposing. This might be why this nomination has been hard-going so far; I suspect it would be far easier if the proposal were to conform it with the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. (Edit conflict, so some of this echoes what Mattinbgn has just said). I think the problem here is that non-cricket fans expect first-class teams to have "nicknames", like Bushrangers, whereas in fact they are usually just named after a political division (such as an Australian state or English county). Some of them have now tried to adopt nicknames, but they're recent and usually not used in conversation. So a "Victoria cricketer", is one who plays for the team called Victoria. The current name, "Victoria (Australia) cricketers", is simply wrong because the team is not called "Victoria (Australia)". "Victorian Bushrangers cricketer" is technically correct for current cricketers, but inappropriate for historical players and doesn't match common usage. As there is no other team called Victoria major enough to merit a category, it seems to me that we should use "Victoria cricketers" and make it clear in the category rubric which team is being talked about. If you think of it as a team name not a state name, I don't see any better solution. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename through all the rationales above. SGGH speak! 11:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename It is self-evidently clear that you disambiguate only in the case of ambiguity. Disambiguating in the absence of ambiguity is (a) unnecessary and (b) positively harmful, as the category name becomes unwieldy and therefore harder to use.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing a point here. Category:Victoria cricketers is ambiguous in that in can mean cricketers from Victoria (which one) or members of a certain team which is not made clear in the category name, especially when you consider the fact that the the category does not match the current name of the teams article.  Yes, I understand that there is an issue with the teams name, but that does not make the suggested name ambiguous.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it were cricketers from Victoria, you wouldn't say "Victoria cricketers". You'd say "Victorian cricketers" (except that that leads to an obvious ambiguity with the 19th century) or "Cricketers from Victoria". And if we were talking about "Cricketers from Victoria", I would support "Cricketers from Victoria (Australia)". But the discussion here is to find the right name for the team category. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Victoria in WP normally has the disambiguator suffix Australia, because there are other places called Victoria. No objection to proposals to reverse the order.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This category is not about a place but a cricket team as quite clearly stated in the nomination.-- Mattinbgn\talk 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Victoria (Australia) cricketers" is consistent with the way that the state that these cricketers come from is referred to. The state article is not Victoria, it is Victoria (Australia). --AussieLegend (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Again as clearly stated in the nomination and established to most people's satisfaction in this discussion, the term Victoria does not relate to the state of Victoria but to the first-class cricket team called "Victoria". As stated above Category:Victoria cricketers and Category:Cricketers from Victoria (Australia) are not synonymous&mdash;see Chris Rogers (cricketer) for a current example, a Western Australian cricketer playing for the Victoria first-class cricket team. Thus the reference to the article Victoria (Australia) is irrelevant. A more relevant example would the actual parent article for the category - Victorian Bushrangers - however I am arguing that this article is named incorrectly as well. To rename the category to Category:Victorian Bushrangers cricketers to reflect the poor choice of article name would compound this error. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe one main point of those opposing the rename is that Category:Victoria cricketers could be interpreted as meaning Category:Cricketers from Victoria (Australia). Thus, it is a somewhat ambiguous name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Since one side of this debate is arguing that "Victoria" is ambiguous, and the other is arguing that "Victoria" refers to a cricket team rather than a state, is it possible that both sides would be satisfied by renaming to Category:Victoria (cricket team) cricketers? Hesperian 01:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Category:Victoria (cricket team) cricketers is a good suggestion and would be fine with it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It gets worse.  A title that includes "(cricket team) cricketers" is laughable.  Not that I would support it, but at least category:Victoria cricket team players looks as if someone has given it a bit of thought  BlackJack | talk page 05:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Arghh, matey! Either suggestion is better than the original proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't agree with Category:Victoria (cricket team) cricketers, it needs to be clear to the average reader that we are referring to the sport and not the insect. I would suggest Category:Victoria (cricket (sport) team) cricketers. Jevansen (formerly Crickettragic) (talk) 12:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In keeping with the spirit of the above, perhaps further disambiguation is needed in case people think that a cricketer is someone who is interested in crickets. And of course to make sure people know that this is the Victoria cricket team from Australia! Perhaps Category: Victoria (Australia) (cricket (sport) team) cricket (sport) players Andrew nixon (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And are we quite sure there is no ambiguity in words like "Australia" and "players"? Should we disambiguate "sport" to clarify that it is an activity and not an Aussie term of endearment? BlackJack | talk page 14:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point! There are two films both called Australia, and Australia can refer to both the country and the continent. Sport is also the name of a magazine, so we should have Category: Victoria (Australia (country)) (cricket (sport (activity)) team) cricket (sport (activity)) players. Andrew nixon (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per User:Mattinbgn's persuasive arguments above. In this case, the new category name is clearly suboptimal.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC).
 * Rename. At this time, and in the foreseeable future, 'Victoria cricketers' is as unambiguous a category name as 'Western Australia cricketers'.  It does not need a qualifier.  Moondyne 09:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename. I am particularly impressed by Sam Korn's points while the inescapable key fact is that this category is about a team called Victoria. Otherwise, the category's title would be "Victorian cricketers" and so there is no ambiguity. In my opinion, disambiguation is a process that can only be applied to individual cases. The decision taken in the former proposal is seriously flawed and is, as this discussion proves, a recipe for ongoing dispute. --GeorgeWilliams (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename I agree with many of the arguments above (nom, BlackJack, Sam Korn, etc), and additionally I tend to oppose names which are unwieldy and inobvious. I don't really like "Victoria cricketers" either as I was a sub-editor for several years and that screams out "grammar fix", but it's way better than the present location. Orderinchaos 20:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename As above, there was no good reason to change original name.--Grahame (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2008 (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.