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:merge per request of the category creator. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:50, 11 July 2012 (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 The NCAA has seperate men's and women's track and field competitions. While some team staff may overlap, men's and women's track and field are treated as two distinct teams. We already have Category:UCLA Bruins women's track and field athletes so it is time we rename this to be clearly the men's track and field category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (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 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 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:speedy delete G4 - recreation of content deleted following discussion. The BushrangerOne ping only 20:48, 10 July 2012 (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. Centre College used the "Praying Colonels" nickname for many decades, most notably in the school's football heyday in the 1920s. However, Centre now uses "Colonels" almost exclusively, as a quick look around the school's official athletic site can confirm. Note also that the school's official "Abour Athletics" page calls the team simply the "Colonels". None of the articles on Centre football seasons of the 1920s need to be changed; "Praying Colonels" was the correct nickname for that era. — Dale Arnett (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change the established precedent is that we use the current name of the team and apply it retroactively to those who played on the teams when they used other names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2012 (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. Washburn University uses "Ichabods" only for men's sports; the school uses "Lady Blues" for women's sports. I just renamed the main Washburn athletics article to reflect this fact. The school's official athletics site makes this obvious—the banner headline states, "The Official Website of the WASHBURN ICHABODS AND LADY BLUES" (emphasis added). There are even separate pull-down menus for "Ichabods" and "Lady Blues" teams. — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. While most colleges and universities use the same nickname for men's and women's teams, Washburn is one of a significant minority of schools with different nicknames for the two. The de facto convention for college sports categories is that when a nickname is exclusive to teams of one sex (e.g., Category:Oklahoma State Cowboys basketball and Category:Oklahoma State Cowgirls basketball), "men's" or "women's" does not need to be included, as the nickname is sufficient to uniquely identify the team. — Dale Arnett (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. I'm not going to stir the pot, but I believe that shouldn't be the case, as it leads to the subcategories of the parent cat having differing styles when there is an alternative, uniform style that is also correct. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a good example of why this is not problematic is Category:Detroit Tigers players. With team names we never provide more information than neccesary. There is no reason to call the category Category:Oklahoma State Cowgirls women's basketball players that is needlessly wordy, and from that fact we move to avoiding neddlessly wordy titles where they are less clearly unneeded (this comes up with schools that call their women's teams the "lady lions" or such, a case unlike cowboys or minutemen in that the problematic of the name for a female team does not exist.)John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Tigers are a bad example because there's no men/women dabbing needed at all for MLB teams! I can see the point...but it still irks my possibly slightly OCD mind to see a category tree using two different naming formats. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fit existing convention. There are probably 30-40 schools in this boat and they are all done this way, so this should be consistent. Rikster2 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2012 (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: Current name is highly ambiguous; could be free-floating objects in water, or any number of other things. Proposed name would fit under both parent Category:Substellar objects and the actual description the category gives for its contents. The BushrangerOne ping only 01:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category should not include brown dwarfs, should be restricted to non-brown dwarfs, since many brown dwarfs are known to be individual. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 02:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a debatable point. I'm finding many instances of "free-floating objects" being applied to brown dwarfs, both in scholarly publications and in the press. In addition, brown dwarfs are frequently referred to as "substellar objects". I suppose the alternative would be to create separate categories for "rogue planets" and "free-floating brown dwarfs". Regards, RJH (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2012 (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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only the main article and one other; little chance for expansion; articles already interlinked and in appropriate other categories. The BushrangerOne ping only 01:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It currently has the main article and two others, which are adequately linked without this cat. I didn't see any sibling categories that would justify this as part of a hierarchy. – FayenaticLondon 23:00, 11 July 2012 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 19#Category:Free-floating objects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)