Talk:Czech First League

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. I'll note that a google search on "Czech 1. Liga" returned all of 98 hits including from wikipedia. Hardly an endorsement that this is a common name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs) 01:00, 12 June 2011

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose. Reading the discussions above I see little support for removing the sponsor's name, and no rationale to do so in terms of
  WP:AT, and this has been pointed out previously. I do see a good suggestion that this should be discussed before raising another move. Please read WP:AT carefully, start an informal discussion as suggested, and if this comes to a conclusion then and only then come back to RM. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. The move request is reasonable but wouldn't Czech First League be more appropriate title? We have Czechoslovak First League article and the proposed "Czech 1. Liga" is basically a linguistic Czenglish hybrid. - Darwinek (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support most cup competitions do not include sponsor name for example
  talk
  )
• Weak oppose Neutral I know this is somewhat off the beaten track, but the answer to question four of this quiz makes for interesting reading. The BBC – which does not carry any advertisements within the UK – is generally a good barometer of whether we should or shouldn't use the sponsor's name, and it calls it the Gambrinus liga. Here's another example. —WFC— 16:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC) EDIT: Going neutral. Timbouctou's rationale is pretty compelling. —WFC— 10:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Most reliable sources seem to name the league as Gambrinus. Here are some more - Guardian stats and RSSSF. Eldumpo (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is a long-standing consensus to avoid sponsor names in articles about individual competitions and I don't see what makes Gambrinus any different. However, the target name should be
  Czech 2. Liga) should then be moved to Czech Second Football League for consistency. Timbouctou (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Here are some further refs showing Gambrinus [3] [4] [5]; it appears there are more showing this name than not. In any case why would we go with 'Czech First Football League' (or indeed Second Football League) as none of the sources are showing that. Eldumpo (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read

WP:AT

?

1. "An article title is a convenient label for the article, which distinguishes it from other articles. It need not be the name of the subject; many article titles are descriptions of the subject."
2. "The ideal article title will resemble titles for similar articles, precisely identify the subject, be short, be natural, and recognizable."
3. "Article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic."
4. "Titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles). As part of this, a good title should convey what the subject is actually called in English."
5. "Titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles."

So how is Gambrinus (a legendary king and unofficial patron saint of beer, who lends his name to a beer brand, which in turn sponsors the top football league) consistent with any of the above? And besides, the sources are pretty confused as to the exact name of the league - is it the "1. Gambrinus league", "First Gambrinus League", "Gambrinus Liga" or "Gambrinus liga"? "1. Gambrinus liga" is used officially in Czech - but then again, the Czech Wikipedia calls it generically "1. česká fotbalová liga" (and conversely, calls the second level "2. česká fotbalová liga"). If any source is to be taken as reliable it's UEFA ("Czech First League") or FIFA ("1. Gambrinus Liga"). UEFA's policy is to drop the sponsored name and directly translate the rest. FIFA goes with the original native name. Timbouctou (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read WP:AT, but did you need to add the "even" to your question? Re 1, it need not be the name of the subject, but it certainly can be. 3 and 4 are similar points - Gambrinus can be argued to be a recognisable name and one which readers will look for, partly because reliable sources are using it. 2 and 5 are also linked - the reason sponsored names are not given to most other leagues is presumably because sponsored names are not generally quoted in the sources e.g. most references will be to La Liga not Liga BBVA, and it's not the case that the community has decided Liga BBVA should not be used as it is a sponsored name. Also, I don't think UEFA/FIFA should necessarily be given more weight than other reliable sources, noting that FIFA call it Gambrinus anyway. Eldumpo (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. The reason why sponsored names are not given to most other leagues is not "because sponsored names are not generally quoted in sources" but because they are subject to change, which is the reason why reliable sources generally avoid them in the first place. The only reason why Gambrinus is used by some sources is that the name has been around long enough to stick.

in Ecuador). As for FIFA.com - it calls all leagues exactly the same way they are officially called in their native languages - hence the Barclays Premier League, Clydesdale Bank Premier League, Liga BBVA, Jelen SuperLiga, T-Com 1.HNL and Serie A TIM to name a few. Timbouctou (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

There's some supposition in what you write above. Is there any evidence, that say, there are more reliable references to "Liga BBVA" than "La Liga"? You don't know why the sources are using Gambrinus, but the assumption must be that they feel the term is in common enough usage for their readers to understand. I don't see the relevance of posting links to what the league was referred to in the past, it should be about the most recent usage for a particular source. I think your statement about "context" is debatable - I would suggest that all references to Gambrinus or "Czech Liga" etc have some identifier within the article to indicate the context - no source is going to start talking about the Czech league all of a sudden.Eldumpo (talk) 09:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "You don't know why the sources are using Gambrinus, but the assumption must be that they feel the term is in common enough usage for their readers to understand." Exactly. If the media thought that the term is common enough they would not feel the need to describe it further. That's the very definition of "common enough". You can find articles talking about "SPL", "La Liga", "Serie A" or "Premier League" in which there is not a single identifier or adjective explaining what those phrases mean because it is widely understood e.g. common. You can't say the same for "Gambrinus". So what we have here is a name used by maybe half of the sources, which is not in line with the majority of other similar articles on Wikipedia, used for something which is equally often (if not more often) referred to descriptively in sources - and when the name is used in those same sources it needs to be explained to the reader what it means. It's like arguing that
  Batigol
  .

The Guardian and RSSSF references only use a qualifier above the name in the same way they do for all the other leagues, to help categorise. The Mail reference refers to Gambrinus Liga and does not add a note that it is the "Czech league", although of course this is implied because of what the article is generally talking about, hence the third point below. Anyway, I think we've both set out our views on this and there's not much more to add. Eldumpo (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the Guardian "reference" you quoted is merely a statistics table. The seven Guardian sources I quoted are all actual articles, e.g. pieces of text written by people paid to write about football (granted, the first two were written before the league adopted the sponsored name). But it still seems strange that people writing about Czech football as late as 2010 somehow managed to avoid mentioning what is allegedly the top level's common name. In addition, the table uses "Gambrinus Liga" (with the capitalized second word). Also, the same source also calls the Russian top league simply Premier League, while we call it Russian Premier League. Interestingly, it also calls Spanish top flight Primera División. Regarding RSSSF (which is itself a borderline source in terms of reliability) uses the "1. Gambrinus liga" form, which is the official Czech name, used by FIFA.com as well. Interestingly, you linked to the season table on RSSF but you did not link to the overview article on RSSSF which collectively calls all editions from 1993 to the present "I. liga CR" (and in fact it doesn't call editions prior to 2001-02 anything at all). Doesn't look like a strong case does it.

• "I don't see the relevance of posting links to what the league was referred to in the past, it should be about the most recent usage for a particular source." - Could you point out where in any wiki policy "most recent usage" is recommended? "Czech league" or some descriptive variant thereof has been used for at least ten years in all sources, which means the majority of the material ever published on the subject in English uses it. Official UEFA yearbooks use it among others, some of which are pretty recent by definition.
• "No source is going to start talking about the Czech league all of a sudden." - No. No source is going to talk about "Gambrinus liga" all of a sudden. They are going to talk about the "Czech league", "Prague club", "Czech champions" etc all of a sudden. Which is pretty indicative regarding the commonness of the term, or more precisely, lack of it. Timbouctou (talk) 13:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "Czech league" in that sense I meant generically, so was including Gambrinus i.e. no article is going to suddenly start throwing in unqualified terms that have nothing to do with the rest of the article. Eldumpo (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally against those descriptive article titles. "Czech First Football League" appears to be one of them, who uses that? We have an article on Serie A, not Italian First Football League. Regarding the move request, I'm inclined to oppose since the sources do seem to be picking up the sponsor name. - filelakeshoe 12:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are not debating the general principles here but the way the top Czech football level is or should be named. And many sources call it descriptively. Timbouctou (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The current title is unambiguous AFAIK, and is at least one of several commonly-used titles in English-language sources. I'm not inclined to believe that we gain anything by moving to an ostensibly more "neutral" title which will by necessity either be uncommon in English or a disputable translation at this time. Give it a few years and we might have a clearer answer: we're not working to a deadline here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Used at UEFA website [10]. Cloudz679 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a prime consideration I'm afraid. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• More descriptive name is not a valid reason it terms of WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• previous nominations for a page move indicated support for a name change excluding the sponsor's name sounds impressive until you read the discussions there and discover that there was more opposition than support. Andrewa (talk) 15:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link a league which uses sponsor's name? In all of UEFA countries I can only find Tippeligaen, and there was support there at the request for move for it not to be called that. Cloudz679 (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The onus of proof is on the nominator. Andrewa (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Proof being the names on wikipedia of all the other UEFA top level leagues. Cloudz679 (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove in terms of
          WP:AT. Andrewa (talk) 07:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• I've left a note at
  WT:FOOTY to see if anyone there has an opinion on the move. Jenks24 (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I guess the women's league article name isn't optimal then too.
  I. liga žen.-Koppapa (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The result of the move request was: move. Despite the low amount of input, the rationale seems straightforward. -- tariqabjotu 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the title is in Czech and the Czech language do not capitalize all proper nouns in a title. --

Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, but we don't always observe native-language capitalization conventions, such as song titles, where there's a specific guidelines. But in RMs, we've often favored English capitalization, such as for French universities. If we had other premier leagues titled in sentence case, that would be one thing. Having this one as an exception is another. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Liga should be capitalized. This is the English-language Wiki. --MicroX (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the move request was: moved to Czech First League. This discussion has stalled and it's clear that the current title is completely unsuitable so we'll go with the proposed title that has the most support. Arguably a little supervote-y but I think we need a resolution to this. I'm happy to help move season articles, categories, etc. but I'm not going to start for a couple of days just to make sure this move sticks. Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support move to
  1. česká fotbalová liga and all season articles to the appropriate title. "Czech 1. Liga" appears to be commonly used for the Ice Hockey League. Number 57 10:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Good point, I hadn't thought of that. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Czech First League per Czechoslovak First League. No evidence of widespread English use of this term to refer to the second-tier ice hockey league. C679 11:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Seems better than the chech title. Good idea. -Koppapa (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but Czech Premier Football League would be a more understandable title. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Football" disambiguator necessary? Czech Football Cup and Czech Football Supercup were moved to their equivalents without "Football" in the past. C679 13:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of "premier league" I guess it isn't (although few sources seem to call the this league a "premier league" anyway), Cup and Supercup don't need them because there's no ice hockey cup or supercup to disambiguate with - filelakeshoe (t / c) 14:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but with the addition that the old articles should in the lead of the article indicate that the official name was a such Blah Blah Blah Liga due to sponsorship. The Kentucky Derby again this year was called Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands so for official reference the name of the league/competition should be noted. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It might be better just starting with a discussion rather than a page move request. It seems the originator is now not in favour of the proposed move, so should the RM be closed/reopened? Is there any evidence that any of the above names are in common usage? What about moving it to the new sponsored name for now and revisiting the sources once the season is underway? Eldumpo (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but no one commented. I support a move to Czech First League per Cloudz as well - if it's what UEFA calls this competition, then that should be good enough for us. Moving this page around all the time will create a lot of menial work changing links and text and moving other articles, so it would be good to come to a consensus before the new season begins. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 11:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its not just about what UEFA call it. I see Soccerway refer to 'Czech Liga'. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldumpo (talk • contribs)

Alright, tonight will be the deciding match of the

2013–14 Czech 2. Liga and I have next season's 1. Liga article ready, since it looks like we're never going to reach a consensus here can I just create it under whatever title I like? These move discussions are roadblocks to people trying to create content sometimes… - filelakeshoe (t / c) 09:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Looks to me like 5 supports and no opposes. Certainly in light of the sponsorship expiry the page cannot remain in the current place. One user citing Soccerway is not really a big "roadblock". Czech Liga can be a redirect. By the way the top two teams in the 2. Liga may not win promotion, since licenses need to be obtained first, and only České Budějovice have a sufficiently equipped stadium as of the moment. C679 11:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  5 supports but all to varying targets. Czech Liga is pretty ambiguous, though I guess so is Liga I and anything which doesn't specify football. There are currently 3 teams which can be promoted from this season's 2L, Hradec's stadium is fine too and Táborsko have made an arrangement to play in Příbram if they get promoted - [14]. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a move. Unsure of the target so relisting. This seems to be a classical case where the sponsor-given
  official name should be avoided if possible. Andrewa (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I would support a move to any reasonable name that uses English capitalization (i.e., title case). Per
  WP:UE, I would also prefer a name in English, though I don't mind a Czech name in principle. --BDD (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support move to Czech First League as that is most COMMONNAME. If the term "Czech 1. Liga" is used for multiple leagues turn it into a DAB page. GiantSnowman 09:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is my analysis on how each of the four proposed titles align with
  WP:AT
  :

Title	Recognizability	Naturalness	Precision	Conciseness	Consistency	Total
Czech 1. Liga	?		?			4
1. česká fotbalová liga						2
Czech First League			?			4.5
Czech Premier Football League					?	2.5

C679 11:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review

. No further edits should be made to this section.