Talk:In-law (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

What specifically?[edit]

My mother and my wife's mother and father are "in-laws", right? But what precedes "in-law", if anything? It seems awkward for my mother to say, "my daughter-in-law's parents" or for her parents to say, "my son-in-law's mother". Isn't there a term for how the parents of a married couple are related as in-laws, even an archaic term? Considering how close they are because of their common interest in their children's marriage, one would think some sort of term existed.

Or is "in-law" the original root term for one's child-in-law's parents, and all the other terms were derived from it? My mother becomes in-law with my wife's parents, and from there, we then add me being a son-in-law and my wife being a daughter-in-law? Our brothers becoming each other's brother-in-law?

I'd like to know about this. GBC (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

In-law (disambiguation) → In-law – No reason to disambiguate this, In-law should be the main page, not a redirect to the specific Parent-in-law CTJF83 22:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems uncontroversial to me, and I would have moved it if requested. Any objections? — kwami (talk) 08:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me, I say go for your executive decision. :) CTJF83 12:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering if there's some reason we don't use "in-law" for in-law. But "in-law" only has 14 mainspace links, so I don't see how a move could mess anything up. Also, it was moved here in Jan. w apparently no discussion. I'll go ahead and move it, and if anyone objects for any substantial reason we can move it back and discuss it. — kwami (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility would be to redirect it to Affinity (law), but red. to 'parent-in-law' doesn't make much sense, since the generic term is not that specific (at Crowninshield family or Frescobaldi, for example.)

Actually, that strikes me as better. We can put the hat note on Affinity (law). — kwami (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, I messed up the move template. If redirecting from 'parent-in-law' to 'affinity' does not address your concern, please relist. — kwami (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Looks good to me. If you want to merge Brother-in-law and Sister-in-law to Sibling-in-law as there is only one page for Parent-in-law, that would be cool, otherwise I'll do it when I wake up....err what do you think of that merge? CTJF83 13:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they all be merged here? We're not a dictionary, and they read like dictionary definitions. — kwami (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to merge them all. CTJF83 19:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]