Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2022 February 13
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < February 12 | << Jan | February | Mar >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
February 13
editWhy are the winners of Australian sports competitions called "premiers" instead of "champions"?
editWhile the winners of the A-League, Big Bash League, and the NBL are referred to as "champions", the winners of many other Australian sports competitions are usually referred to as "premiers" instead. For example, the winners of the AFL and NRL grand finals are referred to as the "premiers" of their respective seasons. Why does Australia use the term "premier" instead of "champion" and why didn't this sense of the word "premier" catch on in sports in other countries (even including New Zealand, where winners are still usually called "champions")? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "Why don't" questions are hard to answer definitively, perhaps they just wanted to be different. Note that we have a Premier League in English football (soccer). Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The Premier League still has champions at the end though. Fgf10 (talk) 09:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Because they're not fans of the Queen? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend I don't understand, surely it's humanly impossible to not be a fan of HM Queen Freddie...? <puzzled and confused>Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- That's Freddie I, and don't call me Shirley. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- HiLo48 is still active right? Maybe he has an idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend I don't understand, surely it's humanly impossible to not be a fan of HM Queen Freddie...? <puzzled and confused>Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The roots of the AFL go back to the 1870s when there were very few international sporting events, it could take up to four months to get from Australia to the UK, which also explains why Australian Rules football developed in isolation to other styles. My guess is that the term goes back a long way and why should they change it to be like everyone else? Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. The Australians did this sort of thing first. Perhaps the question should be "Why are the winners of non-Australian sports competitions called "champions" instead of "premiers"?" HiLo48 (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- The roots of the AFL go back to the 1870s when there were very few international sporting events, it could take up to four months to get from Australia to the UK, which also explains why Australian Rules football developed in isolation to other styles. My guess is that the term goes back a long way and why should they change it to be like everyone else? Alansplodge (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Minor premiership provides some possible clues. As it notes, the premiers you're referring to are technically major premiers although generally just called premiers. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Does it really matter? Per WP:notforum I suggest that this topic of discussion it outside the bounds of Wikipedia's remit given that the use of the word is frimly established in reliable sources, the reason why is beside the point. - Nick Thorne talk 02:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- It matters to the OP, and maybe to others who are interested in the origins of words and terms. Surely there could be reliable sources that could answer the OP's question. --←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Does it really matter? Per WP:notforum I suggest that this topic of discussion it outside the bounds of Wikipedia's remit given that the use of the word is frimly established in reliable sources, the reason why is beside the point. - Nick Thorne talk 02:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Suppose someone should ask, "Why does the Moon have phases?" Is it reasonable, then, to respond by stating that the reason why is beside the point because it is frumly established in the astronomical literature that the Moon has phases? --Lambiam 08:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but the OP didn't ask something like that. A good moon-based analogue for the OP's question is "Why isn't the moon called "Steven?". Because no one named it that. The OP's question cannot be answered using references because not everything that didn't happen is not explained why it didn't happen. The list of things that didn't happen is infinitely longer than the list of things that did, and most of them are unexplained. --Jayron32 12:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Or "Why were the indigenous peoples of the Americas called 'Indians' and not 'Americans'?" — Because no one named them that. --Lambiam 16:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, but the OP didn't ask something like that. A good moon-based analogue for the OP's question is "Why isn't the moon called "Steven?". Because no one named it that. The OP's question cannot be answered using references because not everything that didn't happen is not explained why it didn't happen. The list of things that didn't happen is infinitely longer than the list of things that did, and most of them are unexplained. --Jayron32 12:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @ User:Nick Thorne, nowhere does it say that these refdesks are to be used solely for "questions that matter". If that were the criterion, how in God's earth could it ever be defined to mean the same thing to everyone? The very fact that someone asks a question proves that it matters to them. If you think it's unimportant, then just move on to something you consider worthy of your time and energy, rather than wasting your own time and that of others by denying the matterness of a question. Simples. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- @User:Narutolovehinata5, don't mind the rudeness and poor understanding (notforum applies to main space, not refdesk, or it wouldn't exist in the first place) of @ User:Nick Thorne and other users. You posed an interesting question which could be in theory be answered quite easily if relevant sources were available. I have no idea if they are. It it in no way comparable to asking why the moon isn't called Steven or other such ludicrous straw man examples. Fgf10 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)