Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 30

882:. We shouldn't fault people for living in combined metropolitan districts. A subject who lives in a dozen different small towns in Kansas should be treated no differently than a subject who lives in a dozen well-defined, legally recognized neighborhoods of a major city. In neither case would the subject be considered "people from" all 12 places, anyway -- the subject would only be "from" those places where (s)he lived for a long amount of time and/or during an extremely salient period in the person's life. -- 756:

personal bias -- to decide that Riverdale is "not on a par" with other arbitrarily-selected neighborhoods. The Riverdale neighborhood is well-defined and there are now five dozen people who are clearly associated with Riverdale in this category, with ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish the connections. When there are so many notable individuals from one well-defined place with properly-documented connections to that place, you've met the textbook definition of a category.

3626:- After reading through all of these heartfelt arguments for keeping, I feel obliged to elaborate a little further on why it would be so problematic for us to give our blessings to this category -- as much as I might otherwise be inclined to do so. Postdlf has already covered the basic issues very nicely, so I would like to address the question, "Why not make an exception for such an 501:

is a problem with all "People from" categories, I fully admit that. But that doesn't mean we can't deal with this one now. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Otto brings up a good point, that categorizing by neighborhood adds more category clutter than is desired. Not every fact about a person needs to be a category

682:

The residency in Riverdale was enough to be mentioned in multiple articles in the media, including details about his home and regarding development plans after his death for the estate where he lived. While you may arbitrarily deem it non-defining, the reliable and verifiable sources disagree with you.

3415:

per nom. I agree with Modernist's viewpoint, but not Modernist's analysis. Greenwich is clearly culturally significant, but many people passed through there whether they "lived" there or not - and those who notably contributed to its culture will be mentioned in the neighborhood's article - those who

3368:

people-by-neighborhood categories should exist. One of the biggest problems is that neighborhoods are not clearly defined areas like municipalities, counties, or states. Neighborhood categories for people also really don't sit well with the parent people by city categories—we'd either be stuck with

825:

lived while he was Sec Gen of the UN does not define who U Thant was as a person. And as an aside, a number of the people included in the category have no mention of Riverdale in the article, and many of those who do include no sourcing for the assertion nor do many that do mention Riverdale indicate

632:

Take a look at the individuals listed. There are ample sources provided to show that the three dozen people in the category lived in Riverdale and made enough of an impression to be able to find a source to document these facts. Your personal story is interesting, but irrelevant. When you can find so

495:

merge those with sources, remove the rest. There are two issues here, notability and verifiability. The articles without sources are simple, remove them. There are many that are in this category without a source, and many where the article itself makes no reference of Riverdale (and many that were

3513:

3. It is much easier to police this as a category than as a list. Knowledge runs on the prinicple that the frequent editors of an article are semi-expert in that subject. But even an expert on a city can't keep track of the teeming millions of residents over that city's centuries of history. This

3493:

2. "Who lived where" categories simply don't work as lists in the article. Cities and neighborhoods are big, permanent structures whose importance dwarfs that of any one person who has ever lived there. It lengthens and cheapens the geography articles to force them to include this information when

3397:

Here's my point - and I'm ambivalent about this category, however I'd prefer to see attached to the article a list of important and/or notable residents of Greenwich Village..If this category goes, then the list becomes important because the people in the category are extremely well known, I've seen

755:

exists and is populated with about two dozen entries. I haven't checked the New York City neighborhood ranking system lately, but there seems to be no Knowledge criteria that would have us use this ranking system to determine category eligibility, nor any other objective means -- other than your own

681:

There is no argument that the category is specific, neutral, inclusive and follows all conventions specified. Thant's residency in Riverdale might be the subject of discussion for the individual, but is certainly a defining characteristic for the overwhelming majority of the 60 individuals included.

609:

from the date of my birth to my first birthday (the day we moved), a time of which I have absolutely no memory? No, and to assert so is ludicrous. The vast majority of people are not defined by what neighborhoods they happened to live in and going down the road of categorizing by neighborhood serves

3582:

A culturally significant area of New York City with many notable individuals who are identifiably connected to the neighborhood and for whom their connection to Greenwich Village is a meaningful part of their identity. This is exactly the purpose that categories are intended to serve. Placing these

500:

is quite faulty. Where does it end? Can we categorize by what street someone lived on? How about what house? Which apartment (flat for you Brits)? And how much time must one have spent somewhere to be "from" there? The only answers are subjective, and none of them prove notability. Yes, that

3266:

neighborhood that someone asserts is culturally and historically important enough to merit a category. The problem is that a neighborhood is just far too local and specific to be of any use as a category; it's hard enough to make substantive use of any subnational people categories because of the

852:

and all other categories and has no relevance as an issue to this particular category. This category is far better documented than almost all other such categories and meets the textbook definition for the overwhelming majority of the individuals listed. If removing the handful of entries that you

585:

Well-defined neighborhood with many notable individuals who have resided there, as documented with reliable sources in the article. The Bronx is a large enough borough to justify subcategories such as this one. There are dozens of articles that should be added to this category and a rundown of the

3359:

on the neighborhood exists and is important. And anyone who has played an important part in the history of the neighborhood can be listed in that article. Without context, an individual's connection to a neighborhood really doesn't mean much in the abstract, particularly since the character and

3340:

it is historically and culturally significant. The Village and Harlem are significant repositories of cultural folklore and historical fact reaching back to the 19th century....if not further..the people in the category are important writers, painters, poets and musicians..The Beats, Off-Broadway

2054:

as far a nomenclature, much like the nobel prize, the honours bestowed include more than just the prize-purse, and a coin with a ribbon tied to it....they become 'laureates'. 'winners' of medals become medallists. there's really little to be confused about no matter which side of the atlantic one

1387:

as OCAT intersection of politics and occupation. Do libertarian SciFi writers write differently than others? Everyone likes to make the assumption that people's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, politics is so intertwined in their writing - but that's stereotyping. It would be hard to find literary

604:

There is a bit of a difference between categorizing people based on country or state and categorizing them based on neighborhood. Most people do not country-hop with any great frequency. Many people don't state-hop with much frequency either. People do neighborhood-hop with great frequency. Using

1209:

Thus, the discussion moves to finding a formula that clearly demarcates this category as belonging to the genre, rather than to personal political backgrounds (which is currently illustrated in the disclaimer and the categorisation, but admittedly not the title). I suggest that it be renamed to

784:

No. Assuming that nothing has changed since you made a nomination is careless, at best. Your particular arrogant tone is utterly counterproductive. The fact that the details have changed undermines the entire basis of your nomination, and the fact that you can stand by the nomination in light of

1247:

The current members of the category are all clearly identified by their description as writing libertarian science fiction by self-identification, by receipt of an award specifically for the sub-genre (i.e. the Prometheus Award), or by description by a third-party. They are all verifiable.

3146:

hinders navigation and really opens the floodgates to, well, a flood of categories (or maybe I'm just unusual in having lived in three different NYC neighborhoods in the past three years...not that I have an article, but you see the point). There's also the issue of defining inclusion, as

1388:

experts who when presented with works with which they are unfamiliar would claim to be able infalibly to discern the author's race, ethnicity, sex, religion, and politics. So why do we make that leap of illogic. P.S. If there is a true genre of libertarian sci fi then a proper category of

1719:

to spell out initialism and replace naming it "I" (to indicate that it was the first incarnation of a league by the name "National Professional Soccer League") with "1967", the sole year the league operated (it s article page has likewise been changed). an alternative renaming could be

586:

list of notables in the parent article would fill this category easily. That people can live in many neighborhoods or cities or countries over the course of their lives is a completely ludicrous excuse for deleting a category. By this logic, merge them all to Category:People from Earth.

736:

Buzzzzzzzzz. Sorry wrong answer. It is still lacking a specific parent category for the neighborhood. And creating this now would result in that category also being nominated. Riverdale is not as significant as you may think. It it not on a par with the Westside or the Village.

2900:- is this a standard naming convention? Surely the word "episodes" should be in there, to remove any possibility of plot elements, characters, etc relating to a particular series being listed. If it's not a standard convention, this needs a full listing rather than a speedy listing. 3369:

redundancy, as someone would be categorized as both from NYC (or really, the boroughs thereof) and from Greenwich Village (and any other bloody neighborhood they ever set foot in), or from San Fran and from Haight-Ashbury (you know that one's coming next if this stays...), or would

2024:

For the UK, it should be "medallists", but I doubt if recipients would ever be so described in the UK, as the word in this sense is an Americanism that that only so far affected sports in the UK. Who says it is "correct nomenclature", apart from the nom? In fact the sub-cats of

3416:

were notably influenced by the culture will have mention of that in their bios. But a category of all sorts of those people, along with people who just happened to live in Greenwich without ado is a category of people with minimal in common with one another and not defining.

3514:

is doubly so for neighborhood residents, where neighborhood membership is biographically significant, but not something that the neighborhood's official records would necessarily record. On the other hand, the experts of each individual's biographic article on Knowledge

605:

myself as an example, were I notable enough for an article, I would have one country category. I would be eligible for five state cats. But I would be eligible for close to 20 neighborhood cats. Am I really defined by the fact that I lived in a particular neighborhood in

3661:- In cases like this where there is a very extensive list of names, whose sheer length is disproportionate to the rest of the article, I would strongly recommend splitting it off into a separate article. This also helps by making readers aware that there 3638:

basis would be a recipe for major battles over other similar categories, with unpredictable and conflicting results. If there is very strong sentiment in support of making such exceptions, I think we would be much better off doing so only on the basis of

1977:

I'm pretty sure UK English is medallist (this is a UK prize). Google gets 39 hits for Copley Medalist and 83 for Copley Medallist. And should it not be 'medallist'. ('Recipients of the Copley Medal' neatly sidesteps these difficulties.)

1163:

Possibly, but that should probably be another discussion. The books category is debateable (it may be possible to trim it to genuinely Libertarian books); the overall cat would be reasonable without them, but its present membership

3373:

be categorized by neighborhood, which really hinders navigation. I think it's tenuous enough to categorize people by the city they are from considering how much people move around during their lives. But with neighborhoods, at

3554:

I am a very strong supporter of Categories, but one argument I would never make is that "it's easier to police a category than a list." The plain fact is that it is more difficult to police categories because there's no way to

1198:

is a well-documented area of science fiction, with numerous authors categorised due to verifiable third-party references to their work as belonging to the sub-genre. This category therefore deserves to exist as much as

2718:, is the category really necessary? I think this whole area needs some cleanup perhaps, so are there some similar examples I can look at where there are both topic categories and categories of lists on that topic? -- 496:

added to the category while this was ongoing, also without sources). There is a bigger issue, IMO, about notability. Are people notable for where they lived? A very few yes, most no. Alansohn's suggestion of

3695:, two fairly good sized articles. The category should really stay, and I agree with the above comments by various other editors about the difficulty of maintaining the article list, which is easily altered. 1817:

spelling out initialisms to name cat page is the norm on wikip and being an assistant coach is not noteworthy enough (I ve checked to see that everyone listed was indeed an NASL head coach at some time)

3398:

too many of those lists get diluted over time with Harry, and his Aunt Bee who once lived there - if you know what I mean, so it's a problem...which is why I think this particular category should stay.

3091:

delete, extreme overcategorization, subjective. Per nom, the article and the neighborhood, may be notable, but that doesn't mean that everyone who ever lived there is also (notable for living there)

2099:

the more standardized format for category names appears to be the name of the award first and the winners/recipients/laureates designation second. Also cuts two unnecessary words out of the cat name.

1700: 1691: 2650:. There's nothing inherently wrong about a category of lists. Given the huge number of recipients, this seems like a good way of organising these lists to me. Where else would they go? 821:

of a category is: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." The neighborhood in which, for instance,

659:

of a category is: "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." The neighborhood in which, for instance,

3490:

1. This isn't just a "neighborhood" -- it has a high-five-digit population, making its potential membership much larger than many of the small towns that have their own categories.

3114: 37: 3166:

per nom (upmerge if necessary). Such a finely-detailed level of category is inconceivable. Floodgates indeed! A list might be of interest for some neighborhoods like this, but

3364:

boundaries of neighborhoods—where does Greenwich Village end and the West Village begin?) The issue is not whether Greenwich Village is historically important; it's whether

1709: 1233:

appears to limit itself to those who identify themselves as writing cyberpunk, which would be acceptable here, but would exclude several of the present members of the cat.

42: 3105: 1838: 1787: 3518:

be expected to know the residential history of that person, and be able to know whether to place or not place that person in a given "People from..." category.

3248:

the idea of a list is ok, however this is a famous, and culturally important and historical neighborhood and this category recognizes and documents that fact..

1050:

This category is misleadingly named; its name implies that the writer is Libertarian, but its terms of inclusion say the author's personal views do not matter.

246:

for consistency. Dictionaries list "Argentine", "Argentinian", and "Argentino" as acceptable forms for someone from Argentina, but the common standard used in

830:

have "five dozen people who are clearly associated with Riverdale in this category, with ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish the connections."

3600:. An argument can be made about other neighorghoods, but not Greenwich Village. The type of people the neighborhood inhabits have a world-wide reputation. -- 1842: 1350: 153:- as creator of the category, I support the name change. I'd like the category to encompass Montreal and Vancouver statistics, maybe when they get into MLS. 2457: 3583:

people in this Greenwich Village category is infinitely more meaningful than using People from Manhattan or People from New York City as an alternative.

2711: 1054:

More seriously, it is not defining:it includes any SF author who has written a story about a society with minimal or no government, even if (as with

2923:, with the episode articles sorted either alphabetically or chronologically. This is the first example I've seen of sub-categorizing by season, btw. 107: 1935: 1580:

are two different sports, with several different conventions and rules. plus, the page also acts as a collectoring page for its subcategories.

1226: 751:

You may want to check your answers before assuming they're correct, particularly in the uniquely disturbing manner you chose. The specific parent

21: 2608: 929:

Whether it's a neighborhood, city or country, the issue is the same. The "long amount" standard would be a problem that is relevant to all such

378: 2707: 2453: 2600: 1523: 370: 3122: 1721: 1146: 2715: 2591: 1102:? If oppressive dystopias fit, that stretches the bounds wider still.) Cats which are indistinguishable from their supercats should be 911:

How much time is a "long amount" and by what what objective standard do we as Wikipedians determine that without resorting to POV or OR?

361: 3378:

in an individual's life they may live in one, work in another, go to school in yet another, and socialize in yet another neighborhood.

1809: 1409: 1282: 17: 3470:

someone deleted the list of notable residents, the reason given - the category is sufficient, I just returned the list to the article.

2338:

as suggested. I created it based on a (redirected) link in an article I was looking at, but all other occurences have "meta-analysis".

1030: 1022: 1204: 1389: 1361: 1211: 1705: 3665:

such a list of people associated with the neighborhood, and allows that article to be placed in one or two additional categories.

1013: 3608: 2997: 1552: 721: 2037:, the difference in spelling was very convenient to avoid confusion. "Winners" would be a better rename, but none is necessary. 551:- categorization by neighborhood is overcategorization. People can live in dozens of neighborhoods in the course of a lifetime. 103: 1510: 3228: 3187:- I think this is a good idea as it enables users to break things down and allow users to focus on individual neighborhoods. 517: 3014: 2177:

as explained above, emphasis is incorrectly placed on the physical rather than the honours bestowed. ...have you ever seen a

1506: 1426:

And if this were confined to the consensus members of that genre, there would be no objection but redundancy. But it isn't.

710: 521: 235: 2868: 2859: 2850: 2841: 2832: 2823: 2814: 1544: 3536: 894: 1360:

Actually I'm open to such a replacement except that many non-winner nominees write in this subgenre. I think renaming to

709:. Riverdale is a distinct and unique neighborhood and is deserving of its own cat. In addition, it now has a parent cat ( 2928: 1548: 1519: 1328: 2884: 2091: 1195: 633:

many notable individuals from one well-defined place with properly-documented connections to that place (unlike, say,

231: 3704: 3674: 3652: 3618: 3592: 3568: 3544: 3506: 3479: 3462: 3439: 3425: 3407: 3387: 3350: 3317: 3299: 3276: 3257: 3240: 3217: 3196: 3179: 3156: 3097: 3038: 3026: 3002: 2981: 2964: 2948: 2912: 2892: 2807: 2748: 2727: 2694: 2677: 2654: 2640: 2583: 2524: 2507: 2480: 2461: 2409: 2347: 2328: 2305: 2246: 2185: 2169: 2146: 2126: 2108: 2084: 2065: 2046: 2004: 1987: 1967: 1951: 1925: 1866: 1862:

per roundhouse0. We don't seem to subclassify coaches into "head coaches", "assistant coaches", etc. for any sport.

1854: 1827: 1795: 1733: 1673: 1615: 1589: 1564: 1534: 1496: 1435: 1421: 1401: 1373: 1340: 1323: 1294: 1276: 1242: 1180: 1158: 1137: 1115: 1005: 942: 920: 902: 862: 839: 794: 779: 765: 746: 731: 691: 672: 646: 623: 595: 577: 560: 541: 507: 442: 425: 406: 353: 294: 280: 261: 221: 162: 143: 93: 3287: 2156: 2057: 1230: 1200: 126:. Soccer is the predominant name for association football in Canada; "football" alone refers almost exclusively to 2872: 2863: 2854: 2845: 2836: 2827: 2818: 2685:

A biggish list split into articles/lists by letter. I see no problem, and there are loads of categories of lists.

3719: 3078: 3054: 2788: 2764: 2706:

I thought a category of lists would be considered a self-reference and should at least be a hidden category like

2564: 2540: 2387: 2363: 2263: 2227: 2203: 1906: 1882: 1773: 1749: 1654: 1630: 1477: 1453: 986: 962: 752: 482: 458: 334: 310: 247: 202: 178: 158: 74: 3718:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3053:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3009: 2936: 2763:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2539:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2362:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2202:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1995:- "medallists" would be the correct spelling. I would note that the Royal Society website calls them "winners". 1939: 1881:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1748:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1696: 1629:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1452:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1171:, which has been endorsed by Libertarians, but is not made by or for them, as far as our article goes) is iffy. 961:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

457:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

309:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

177:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

3421: 3077:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2787:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2744: 2563:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2520: 2386:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2226:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2142: 1905:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1772:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1653:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1560: 1476:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1397: 985:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

573: 481:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

333:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

201:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

2424: 1687: 3688: 3267:

degree to which people are born in one place, live in another, go to school in another, work in another...

2888: 2665: 2254: 1603: 1543:

based on the few I looked at, these people play/played both indoor and outdoor soccer so this is OCAT, like

1346: 1805: 1221:

This does not answer the real objections: that the cat is subjective, and that it does not define a useful

1111: 2972:

Seems perfectly clear & acceptable to me. With up to 23 articles per cat, the split seems reasonable.

2271: 2096: 2026: 276: 2415: 3435: 3295: 3236: 2673: 2503: 2324: 1983: 1850: 1354: 1249: 1215: 1168: 775: 742: 537: 2178: 3308:

We have deleted any number of categories that are larger than this one and that have logical parents.

2432: 1059: 271:- as creator of this category, I support decision out of consistency for other people from Argentina. 3613: 2165: 2000: 1431: 1417: 1369: 1336: 1319: 1290: 1272: 1238: 1176: 726: 637:

where not a single notable is properly sourced), you have met the textbook definition of a category.

421: 154: 3360:

boundaries of this neighborhood have changed over time (and you should hear New Yorkers fight about

2495: 770:

Yes, the specific category was created after this nomination. So I'll stand by my comments above.

398:

This is a WikiProject category, but appears to be incorrectly designed for use on the main article.

139: 3700: 3475: 3458: 3417: 3403: 3346: 3253: 3035: 2961: 2740: 2651: 2516: 2138: 2034: 1863: 1823: 1729: 1585: 1556: 1530: 1393: 1264: 569: 403: 258: 253: 3670: 3648: 3588: 3564: 3502: 3313: 3213: 3175: 3022: 2906: 2343: 2300: 2182: 2104: 2062: 1964: 1948: 1256: 1133: 938: 916: 858: 835: 790: 761: 687: 668: 642: 619: 591: 556: 3643:

that have already been agreed upon beforehand, so they can be applied fairly across the board.

135: 3684: 3528: 3383: 3329: 3272: 3192: 3152: 2977: 2943: 2723: 2690: 2636: 2476: 2122: 2042: 1392:

may be sustainable, but I can't see that genre is clearly established by the arguments above.

1154: 886: 438: 272: 131: 127: 123: 1062:") the purpose of the story is to argue that such a society is not stable. That's everybody: 853:

feel do not meet the standards for inclusion will address your concerns, by all means do so.

3431: 3291: 3232: 3142:

Overcategorization, better handled as a list. Subdividing people by locality categories by

2669: 2499: 2404: 2320: 1979: 1846: 1311: 1079: 771: 738: 533: 3603: 2990: 2880: 2161: 2080: 1996: 1611: 1427: 1413: 1365: 1332: 1315: 1286: 1268: 1234: 1194:("this category is misleadingly named" - that means it should be renamed, not deleted!). 1172: 1107: 716: 417: 3453:

in four columns in the article...if this category goes the list will have to suffice....

3696: 3471: 3454: 3399: 3342: 3249: 1819: 1725: 1581: 1526: 1099: 1091: 399: 3666: 3644: 3584: 3560: 3498: 3337: 3309: 3209: 3171: 3147:

neighborhoods do not have formal boundaries and may change significantly over time.

3094: 3018: 2901: 2804: 2580: 2339: 2316: 2296: 2243: 2100: 2029:

show a rich stew of "recipients", "winners", "laureates", "honorees", and "holders",

1922: 1792: 1670: 1573: 1493: 1129: 1063: 1002: 934: 912: 854: 831: 818: 786: 757: 683: 664: 656: 638: 615: 587: 552: 504: 350: 289: 218: 90: 3559:

them, and there's no way to know what may have been removed without your knowledge.

3692: 3541: 3533: 3525: 3379: 3268: 3188: 3148: 2973: 2940: 2719: 2686: 2632: 2472: 2118: 2038: 1260: 1150: 1125: 1071: 899: 891: 883: 434: 3430:

However the cultural significance is in large part due to many of the residents.

663:

lived while he was Sec Gen of the UN does not define who U Thant was as a person.

1364:

would be better. It might be better than what we have, but I can go either way.--

1310:

This is a recognized subgenre of science fiction. It even has its own award, the

118:. This category consists of association football statistics articles, spefically 1055: 826:

that the person's living there was of any particular significance. So we really

634: 606: 2876: 2491: 2076: 1607: 122:'s statistics. The current name's "Canadian football" is easily confused with 119: 3071: