Category:1999-00 domestic football (soccer) leagues[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "1999-00" seems to imply "1999-1900", which doesn't make sense. To avoid confusion, it should be "1999-2000". – PeeJay 22:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 22:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename While I'm sure that there aren't too many people who are confused by this, including the full century for both years is appropriate here. Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2009 (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.
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 22:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match other categories in parent in the Fooian (or is it Fooish) format. Alansohn (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2009 (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:Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]
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.
Consensus is broadly in favour of retention, subject to justifiable WP:OC#OPINION concerns. Categorisation by opinion held is inappropriate - the only justifiable basis of inclusion should be that of significant advocacy, which, for some individuals, is a defining characteristic. For this reason I am persuaded by the arguments to rename this category, more clearly identifying it with those concerned with the creation and development of these theories rather than those who merely hold them.
Nominator's rationale: While I have no clear opinion on this one way or another, this would seem to be a violation of WP:OC#OPINION, which of course is but a guideline and "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Created back in May, it has not been CfDed as yet, so let's have at it and see what the consensus may be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OC#OPINION does make a distinction between mere opinion-holders and activists, the latter being more defining, so the "proponents" part of the category might be what tips the scales in favour of retaining.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for sure per WP:OC#OPINION. And because this is not a significant distinction. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:OC#OPINION could also be used to remove all mention of religious beliefs in categories too, save for the priesthood. We have to remember it's a guideline only. The nature of the subject means that notable people who are proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories are what makes conspiracies notable; it's useful information on the subject. I think wikipedia would not be improved by deleting it.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Political opinion is not analogous to religious belief, so I think the fear that the deletion of this would serve as a precedent for those is not a concern. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fear of a precedent, it's pointing out that WP:OC#OPINION cannot simply be quoted as clear policy and be the end of it. Why does this particular opinion fall within the spirit of the guideline? (I don't think it should.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous reasons, and per discussion at the Birthers deletion. Tarc (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The topic has widespread worldwide interest. The notability of many proponents is significant. A category is imho preferable to a dedicated article on proponents which could be a valid alternative. "Proponents" is NOT a political opinion and, unless religious belief excludes nominal membership, IS analogous to religious belief. The birth debate is of little interest to foreign readers, thus it is hardly comparable in notability with 911. Wayne (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unlike with the 'birthers' controversy, many of these people are primarily known for being proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories. That might not be true of everyone in this category, but there are certainly some for whom this is a defining characteristic. See, for instance, the fact that we have {{911ct}} listing the most prominent ones - we have no such template for the 'birthers', and nor should we, but it is appropriate here for the same reasons as the category. Robofish (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:9/11 conspiracy theorists - to match the parent conspiracy theorists category. Prune people like Edward Asner, whose proponence of any conspiracy theory appears limited to writing an open letter. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the category is named Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, it should categorize people who are actively promoting such theories. There might be articles about people in this category who merely agree with such theories, and such articles should be removed from this category. The category probably needs a clear documentation that advises against adding people solely based on a reported opinion on 9/11. Cs32en 00:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-defined and defining category that is the primary defining characteristic for most individuals in the category and is regularly used in reliable and verifiable sources describing these individuals. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I am alllowed a "keep" vote as the CfD nominator, I make it here. I think a) the arguments in favour of retaining have been the more compelling b) as I stated above, I think the "proponents" part of the category title makes clear that these are activists of a kind, and activists are expressly not covered by WP:OC#OPINION c) 9/11 is a vastly more historic, globally defining event than the Obama birthers issue, giving us good reason to make an exception here as we are expressly advised by WP:OC#OPINION to do, in cases like this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's called "Proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories", not "Supporters of 9/11 conspiracy theories", for exactly this reason. Merely supporting a theory, in the sense of saying "I agree with such theories" when being asked, is not a sufficient condition for inclusion. The term "conspiracy theorist" carries WP:BLP problems that have been discussed at length in this subject area. Cs32en 08:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's not how the category was being used. It was largely being populated through a template and from the articles I reviewed the template was being applied to any article that made any mention whatsoever of the subject discussing the idea of an alternate theory regardless of the extent or context. Making a single statement questioning any aspect of the mainstream story gets the template slapped on it. Renaming and restricting to people who per reliable sources actually theorize about a 9/11 conspiracy (along with removing the overzealously-placed template) would go a long way to addressing the problems with this category. Otto4711 (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the criteria, my view is that, for example, Charlie Sheen has really wanted it to be publicly known that he thinks the WTC would have been destroyed by controlled demolition. Jean-Marie Bigard is currently producing a series of videos in which he talks about 9/11. He's a proponent of conspiracy theories, and he's well known for being one. His primary identification, in the public view, would be "a comedian", not "a conspiracy theorist", so we have WP:BLP issues here. Edward Asner, who is known for writing an open letter in which he advocates 9/11 conspiracy theories, talks on conferences of conspiracy theorists, but most of these have not been covered in WP:RS sources. This is thus a more difficult case. It would be best if non-9/11-involved editors working on the Edward Asner article would form a consensus on this. There is some tendency to look for people with otherwise clearly objectionable views (such as Holocaust deniers), and push them onto the category as soon as some news magazine has reported that they have stated agreement with 9/11 conspiracy theories somewhere. As for the template, in my view, the {{911ct}} template should only be on BLP articles that are listed in the category, but the functionality of the template can be easily changed. It's not the concept of the category, but the still difficult editing process in the subject area that causes the problems (overcrowding of the category) that have been pointed out here. Cs32en 17:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be best to transfer the discussion about the proposal for renaming the template to the template's talk page. Cs32en 17:21, 7 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:These three categories for three of the five subclasses of the Italian Condottieri class cruisers have names that differ from the names at the Italian Wikipedia. I'm proposing that the English category names match the Italian ship class names. In the case of the first suggested rename, the lead ship of the ship class (which the class is named after) is Italian cruiser Alberto da Giussano (not di Giussano). At a minimum, the class should be corrected to Da and not Di. It should also be noted that "da Giussano" (like the da Vinci in Leonardo Da Vinci) is not a surname, so it's a bit problematic for a shorthand class name to be to use that. (It would be the same as a [fictional] Pliny the Elder class being called "The Elder class".) — Bellhalla (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing English-language sources at the library, I'm convinced the latter two categories are correctly named and, thus, should not be renamed. The first category, should be renamed to Category:Giussano class cruisers to match usage in English-language sources. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with rename "di" to "da". Is it common usage to add the first name to the classes? I doubt it. If not, then I would certainly oppose the renames. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 2 August 2009 (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.
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 Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 03:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: expanding abbreviation of this supracategory page Mayumashu (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest Category:Can-Am Series or Category:Can-Am Cup as a better title. Although Canadian-American Challenge Cup is the correct title, it is almost universally known as simply Can-Am, similar to the popularity of NASCAR compared to National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing. IIIVIX (Talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand abbreviation somehow -- abbreviations are meaningless except to cognosici. Even the suggested target is inadequate as it is not clear what sport (?) is referred to. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename The existing category is a direct match of the parent article, and keeping the article and category titles in sync is a great way to reduce confusion. We have plenty of other article titles which represent acronyms and abbreviations which are not spelled out in the article title, a la NASCAR, and should be kept as is in the corresponding category. If it is deemed that only the "cognosici" [sic] are familiar with the term, the best way to pursue this is through achieving consensus on a change in the article title, not through arbitrary differences in spelling out the name in the category. Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article pages describe what is they are about whereas category pages don t, and so the trend has been for them to be named in a manner that where the intended meaning is more self-evident. Mayumashu (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fervently disagree with the principle that the category world somehow wags the rest of Wikipedia. Far broader consensus in the real world of article space is that Can-Am is an appropriate title for the article, just as for NASCAR or NATO. We ought to respect that here at CfD and help all editors and readers by matching category titles with those of the parent article. The justification often presented that category titles need to be more self-evident appears to be based on a presumption that all anyone knows about the category is its title, when the reality is that categories are seen within articles where there is more than adequate context for what the category refers to and appropriate descriptive information -- including a link to the parent article -- should be added on the category. The cost of greater confusion by manufacturing artificial titles such as Category:Canadian-American Challenge Cup (auto race) that do not match the title of the parent article is outweighed by the cost of creating a title that no one editing or reading related articles would ever guess. The far more productive approach would be to convince the masses that the article title should be renamed and then come back here once consensus has resulted in renaming the parent article. Trying to do this by imposing a title different from that of the parent article only magnifies any possible confusion. Alansohn (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unmanageable categories that will end up growing huge and will never be up to date. Will soon be equivalent to having a category for organisations that have a website, or organisations that use computers etc. Same for the people. Canterbury Tailtalk 12:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful subcategory that tells users what organizations and people provide real-time updates about themselves. Doesn't seem any more difficult to maintain than other categories such as "Living Persons" or the births in any given year ("1935 births") for example. Most people don't have Twitter feeds, so being listed here is the exception rather than the rule. HyperCapitalist (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is kept, I would suggest a rename to "Organization with Twitter feeds" and "People with Twitter feeds" to fix the erroneous capitalization of the word "feeds." HyperCapitalist (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good practice. I do, and have seen others do. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question We don't have Organizations/people with Web sites or Organizations with call centres, and the like, so why would we retain this? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think having "Organizations/People with websites" would be all that bad. Having said that, Twitter feeds are different in that they are rarer and I believe indicate a bit about the subject's culture (organizations) or personality (people). It is also a direct source of information about the subject. Finally, I created this subcategory to rationalize the parent category "Twitter." That category was getting confusing with different types of articles -- some about Twitter and some about people/organizations that used Twitter. HyperCapitalist (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out we do have a category for organizations with websites. It is "websites by company" and has some subcategories -- although it is probably an good example of the "will never be complete" theme. It is, however, part of a much larger category that is well maintained and subcategorizes company and other websites. HyperCapitalist (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not quite the same thing. Websites by company is simply one way of sorting the existing Websites parent category: another is Websites by country. This is not the same as Companies with a website. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim that existence of this other category is reason to keep the subject categories, but I think it is pretty much the same thing. Rename the subject categories to "Twitter feeds by company" and "Twitter feeds by people" and you are there. HyperCapitalist (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not the same thing. But if we have articles on Twitter feeds that satisfy WP guidelines for notability, with third party RS, sure, there should be a category for them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to ...Twitter feeds. Being a large category isn't reason for deletion. Def. a notable attribute to some people (for example, Stephen Fry, who've I've just added to the cat). Lugnuts (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Would we have "people with yahoo IDs" as a category? "People who drive BMWs" "People who prefer to talk on the phone rather than text"? "People who shop at Sainsbury's"? To argue that Twitter feeds are different in that they are rarer and I believe indicate a bit about the subject's culture (organizations) or personality (people) is a form of WP:OR as it bears on what appears in the article. Even if there were research to prove it, it would be a misunderstanding of research to use that to justify a category. (By analogy, there's certainly very reliable research on the kinds of people who shop at Sainsbury's, but it would be a fallacy to have that as a category proxy for personality). In addition, while Stephen Fry's twittering is notable, it doesn't mean that anyone notable's possession of a twitter feed is. Paul Newman's or Frank Sinatra's blue eyes are notable, but Stefan Edberg's are not.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIAL and above comment. While Twitter is new, hip and the thing of the moment, I do not believe we should be creating categories for people or organizations who have accounts, any more than we should for those with Web sites, nor Facebook pages, 1-800 numbers, post office boxes etc. If people want to see who has a Twitter account, they can go to Twitter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the last two examples were bad ones, and I've struck them through. I do get that Twittering is a sort of, kind of, form of self-publishing. But anyone can have an account. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It seems to just be grouping people by a service they use, which I can't see the benefit of. It will easily swell to a point that it's useless. Greg Tyler(t • c) 17:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTwitter, or a twitter-like service is going to be more and more common as we go into the future. It would be like "People/Organizations who have web sites". Sure.... everybody does now. Everybody will. It will more more similar to "People/Organizations who are humans". True and Useless. David Reiss (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are probably already thousands of organizations in this category, and the list will only increase. This will be both impossible to keep up to date and far to long to be of any practical use. Also, are we going to have categories for every other online service? "Organizations on MySpace?" "Organizations with Flickr Accounts?" "Organizations that post videos on YouTube?" This is silly. Binarybits (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopedic, I seriously doubt anyone will care 100 years from now. -- malo(tlk)(cntrbtns) 04:01, 4 August 2009 (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:Canadian football players by position[edit]
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.
Support Rename to match naming of parent category and corresponding American Football category. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 10 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There might be a useful category in here somewhere, but in its current state the title and the category itself are inherently POV. Hairhorn (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obvious POV. --Bejnar (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Appears to be hyphen to emdash.Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question All of the subcategories for Category:2005–06 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season seem to have the hyphen. Is this a larger question than supposed? How many categories are like this? Also, the nominator's rationale seems to have been truncated before it was stated. --Bejnar (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch. The software does not support category redirects to allow an easy way to deal with these. A change to the MoS to clarify this is stuck in a quagmire over who is not participating in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally against all those fancy dashes. If this is a guideline, I support - but if this is only convention - I oppose the rename. Debresser (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names. Reverse merge to the normal hyphen. Otto4711 (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support i think its better that the Categories use the emdash since the articles use it. Also there are several other categories that would need moving to emdash.Jason Rees (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2009 (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.
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 Consensus. --Xdamrtalk 22:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Until May of 2008, the the English word "municipality" was predominately used to refer to Algerian baladiyat, to a much lesser extent the French word "commune" was used. Even today the use of "municipality" is more prevalent in this context. However, a number of edits have ben made changing municipalities to communes. Typical is one at List of municipalities of Algeria of 19 May 2008 where the editor said "moved Municipalities of Algeria to Communes of Algeria: move to commune as this is officially recognised in French". As this is the English Wikipedia, and the term municipality is used for baladiyat, it seems appropriate that the category reflect that usage. A review of the history of the Provinces and districts section of the Algeria article over the past two years indicates that using the English word municipalities is acceptable to most editors interested in this topic. Bejnar (talk) 05:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As an initial guideline, commune appears to be used rather more widely in English language books on google, as well as more in journals. In addition, Wikipedia already uses commune over municipality for France. While municipality is certainly acceptable as an explanatory term, commune appears preferable as the everday term, as it can be given a more definite meaning in this context. Compare oblast and region in discussions of Russia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that commune is a French usage and is appropriate for France, because commune is part of the name of those areas. That is not true in Algeria. Just because many materials in English about Algeria in the XX Century were translated from French by French speakers does not suggest that we use the French word. --Bejnar (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison to oblast fails because "commune" is not the Algerian term, the Algerian term is "baladiyah" (plural "baladiyat"), which is usually translated into English as "municipality". --Bejnar (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (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.
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 school consistently calls its athletic program "Cal State Fullerton" (see its official athletics site, fullertontitans.com, for numerous examples), and both the NCAA and US sports media generally follow this usage.
As mentioned before, the de facto standard is to include the sex in the title of such a category, even if no corresponding category exists for the other sex. All of the articles currently in this category refer to men.
Support Rename to reflect existence of corresponding team for women. Under Title IX, we are probably required to have equal categories with the same number of articles for both teams and could lose federal funding if this is not remedies. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! As you probably know, Wikipedia isn't subject to Title IX — that law applies only to schools, AFAIK. (BTW... I am a lawyer, but not yours. ;) — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My lawyer informed me that I was making a joke, and sent me a bill for a few thousand dollars for the clarification. Alansohn (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renaming as CSU is an abbreviation, and the Manual of Style suggests that abbreviations be avoided in article, and presumptively, in category titles. "Cal" is still an abbreviation, but it is better. --Bejnar (talk) 05:45, 2 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As mentioned below, the de facto standard for college athletics categories (in sports played by both men and women) is to include the sex in the category title, even if no corresponding category exists for the opposite sex. All of the people in this category are women. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to reflect existence of corresponding team for men. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2009 (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.
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.
Comment Should we include "Men's" to be unambiguous as to the sex of its players and is "Monarchs" enough to let readers know that the women's team is called the "Lady Monarchs". I would see a better argument to leave of "women's" where the team is described as the "Lady Monarchs", but I'm not sure that it is justified here. Is there any standard on this? Alansohn (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2009 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename for the following reasons:
US sports media use "Southern Illinois" strictly to describe the main Carbondale campus of Southern Illinois University. That school uses the nickname Salukis.
These are men's soccer players at SIU's Edwardsville campus. While the school brands itself athletically as "SIUE", sports media and its current conference, the Ohio Valley Conference, generally call it "SIU Edwardsville".
Finally, the de facto standard for college athlete categories is to include the sex in the category title, even if there's no category yet for the other sex. SIUE uses "Cougars" for both sexes.
Support Rename to reflect existence of corresponding team for women. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2009 (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.
