Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 25

< January 24	January 26 >

January 25[edit]

Category:Bulgars[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.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Bulgarian people. A very odd collection of pages has been categorized here, without any discernible rhyme or reason. Latebird (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Th Bulgars are not exactly the Bulgarian people and are much much more ancient. The Bulgarian people includes Bulgars and Slavs and the Bulgars continued to exist in parallel with the Bulgarian people after the later was formed in the 10th century. As there are currently very few articles concerning the Bulgars, I have put into that category all I could find including their rulers, states and beliefs. --Gligan (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let's see how this develops. "Bulgaria" and "Bulgarian" will usually be taken to refer to the present country of that name or larger or smaller polities in the same area. I take it that the Volga Bulgars are sufficnetly deparated and thus disticnt to warrant a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep in no way is this redundant. The Category:Bulgarian people is for people living in Bulgaria, mostly in recent times. Category:Bulgars is for ancient peoples and tribes. Read the articles. Hmains (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I was alerted to this category when the articles Tengri and Tengriism were added. That didn't make much sense, or they would end up in literally dozens of contemporary and historical nationality categories. The current state of the category is rather confusing, featuring a category loop with Category:Volga Bulgaria, several entries that don't really belong (even with the explanations given), and the article Bulgars sorted somewhere in the middle instead of at the top. Because of all that, I only noticed after nominating that the Bulgars are indeed something different from the Bulgarians. Seeing that confirmed by the votes so far, I hereby withdraw the nomination. However, I still suggest that someone with a firm grasp of the category system go through it and help the creator to bring it into acceptable shape. If there are few matching entries, then it is better to keep it small, instead of adding articles that are only marginally related. --Latebird (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second that! Johnbod (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hmains. --Beloved Freak 18:51, 29 January 2008 (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:Proboscids[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Proboscids to Category:Proboscideans

Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric proboscids to Category:Prehistoric proboscideans

Nominator's rationale: Rename: Proboscid is a very nonstandard vernacular name for elephants and their relatives (Order Proboscidea). A Google search generates about 2,200 hits, the majority of which refer to a group of flies. Proboscidean generates 19,600 hits, almost all about elephants, including definitions on the first page. --Helioseus (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and for consistency with Proboscidea article. --Beloved Freak 18:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Starrcade[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no likelihood of expansion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorisation. --Beloved Freak 18:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American Wrestling Association shows[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:American Wrestling Association shows to Category:its parent categories

Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents - single-item category, no likelihood of expansion as the promotion is defunct. Otto4711 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Otto4711. --Beloved Freak 18:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mergee per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Wrestling alumni[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was relisted on feb 1. Kbdank71 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify and Delete - a similar category was deleted here and I had hoped that the nomination would serve as a precedent. Although it was deleted, one of the delete !votes was based on the relative size and notability of the promotion. So, here are a couple more, including one for a major promotion, again with the notion of perhaps establishing a wider consensus on the category type. To reiterate the previous rationale, we don't appear to categorize any other sports or entertainment performers on the basis of their former associations with teams or companies. Baseball players, for instance, are in the players category for each of their teams and not in any "former players" structure. These categories also implicate WP:OC#performer by performance in the same way that categories for actors by TV series cats do. Wrestlers can and do perform for a variety of promotions and categorizing all of them on each wrestler's article leads to category clutter.. Otto4711 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "(X) wrestlers". "Alumni" should not be used for any athlete categories, even pro wrestlers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have the same objections to a Foo wrestlers naming scheme because it's still performer by performance, the same as Foo actors. Otto4711 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the categories, the more I think they're nicely organized, and strongly parallel the athlete "player" categories. But I still object to alumni. So I think they should just be (X) wrestlers, or we should do nothing. Deleting them seems highly arbitrary on our part, especially if you're not nominating Category:World Wrestling Entertainment alumni.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted here and in the last nomination, I'm using these as test nominations to put together consensus on the category tree. If consensus is to listify and delete these then I'll nominate the rest of the tree. Otto4711 (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom performer by performance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:EFF Pioneer Award recipients[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by non-defining award-winner. As much as I love the EFF and the Pioneer Awards, Tim Berners-Lee and Richard Stallman, Gigi Sohn, and Jimmy Wales are not defined by having the EFF recognize their accomplishments; they are defined by their accomplishments. All winners are properly listed in the award page. Lquilter (talk) 18:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OCAT by award, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - if no list exists in the main article then create one and then delete the category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed, fyi. --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Recipients of the Henry Draper Medal[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete (already listified). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, overcategorization by award. There is only one article in this category, and all the other winners are correctly listed in the Henry Draper Medal article. This is an astrophysicist award. Lquilter (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OCAT by award, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - if no list exists in the main article then create one and then delete the category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already listed, fyi. --Lquilter (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Drug addicts[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.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Category is extremely vague and subject to much controversy. This is especially a problem with a biography of a living person because of potential legal problems. How is a drug addict defined? Is a drug user a drug addict? If a person denies that he is an addict but has used drugs, should that person be included? Are alcoholics drug addicts? If someone consumes a lot of caffeine (caffeine is a drug), is he a drug addict? Are chocoholics drug addicts? Ward3001 (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for WP:BLP concerns if nothing else. Pretty sure this is a recreation as well so suggest a dose of salt. Otto4711 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:BLP, vagueness, and over-inclusiveness per Ward3001 (yes, chocoholics are drug addicts. i have to get offline now before my hands start shaking). --Lquilter (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Snocrates 03:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:BLP reasons. --Beloved Freak 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (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:Rugby union stadiums in Dubai[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename to Category:Rugby union stadiums in the United Arab Emirates. Kbdank71 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rugby union stadiums in Dubai to Category:Rugby union stadiums the United Arab Emirates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't think there are enough rugby union stadiums in the city of Dubai to warrant this category. Julius Sahara (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed rename should be Category:Rugby union stadiums in the United Arab Emirates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps Category:Rugby Union Stadiums in the gulf states, to coiver the whole of the Persian Gulf. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "gulf states" is adopted then it should specify Persian gulf states to avoid ambiguity with other gulf states like Florida and Mississippi. Otto4711 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to to Category:Rugby union stadiums the United Arab Emirates per nom. --Beloved Freak 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My nomination has a spelling mistake. It should be Category:Rugby union stadiums in the United Arab Emirates per Metropolitan90. Julius Sahara (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional gunslingers[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is for Western characters who use guns. Don't pretty much all Western characters use guns? Casts far too wide a net. Otto4711 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, not all western characters use guns and not all are gunslingers. They are quite a subgenre of character types and the categorisation seems defining. Dimadick (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective as to which characters are "gunslingers" or not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Over-categorisation. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as over categorisation. --Beloved Freak 18:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over-categorisation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Married... with Children[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous category for a TV series. Everything is appropriately categorized and linked through text and template. Otto4711 (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Writers by sexuality[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was merge into Category:Writers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one item, unlikely to contain more. Edward (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Writers Unnecessary layer of categorization. What else could it hold? Also, partially invalid, as being transgendered is not a sexuality. LeSnail (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Writers per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Writers. -- Alan Liefting-talk- 21:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Writers.--Beloved Freak 18:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Prank phone calls[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 17:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete a dumping ground for people (and characters) who have made prank phone calls. We shouldn't have categories for people unless they are people categories, and prank phone calls as a cat is in invitation to do that. Is Bart Simpson's defining characteristic prank phone calling? c'mon. Next we'll have Category:Flatulation and add anyone who has farted to great laughter and effect added thereto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flatulence. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't have Blazing Saddles in it, among numerous others. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly all the prank phone callERS need to be deleted from the category, but it seems plausible that there could be enough articles about prank phone calls, specific ones or the phenomena generally, to merit a category. Unfortunately, there are 33 articles in there now and they seem to be a mix of fictional characters, comedians, albums by comedians, talk show hosts, and it's too late at night for me to do a clean census on this category. But I live in hope that when I wake up tomorrow morning someone will have done it. <g> --Lquilter (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little or no growth potential. Following the removal of the people and fictional characters who are not themselves prank phone calls, most of the remaining articles are for prank call albums, which should be in Category:Prank call albums and a Jerky Boys movie which is linked through the JB template and can reside in Category:Comedy films. The remaining content is: Crank Yankers (a TV show); Fonejacker (another TV show); Gag name (not exclusive to prank calls); Prank call; and three about specific calls: Mr. Bergis prank calls (currently prodded for notability); Tube Bar prank calls; and You Kicked My Dog. That's seven articles, the first three of which I consider miscategorized, one on a non-notable subject and two of questionable notability. Even if all three of the articles about specific prank calls are retained there's no reason why they can't reside in Category:Practical jokes. Otto4711 (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice based on Otto4711's assessment of the contents. If over time more and more articles about notable prank calls accrete in the "Practical jokes" category, or some other useful reason presents itself, then the category can be recreated. --Lquilter (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Pranksters[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was No consensus. Yes, I did participate in the discussion, but this has been open way too long. This action results in a keep which is the opposite of my delete opinion. So I don't consider this close as a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete not defining for the people in this cat; also subjective and OR. How many pranks does one have to do to be included here - a crank call or two? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes it is subjective, but where else could you put say Kevin Conde? The cat will need a lot of maintenance, but I think we need it. LeSnail (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep certainly is 'defining' by any normal meaning of the term. Certainly for fun people Hmains (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First thing I think about Ashton Kutcher and Joe Orton. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keepDefining for most of the articles already included. Dimadick (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yes it is subjective, so it should be deleted, end of story. Not every group of people need a category linking them. --Kbdank71 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename Category:Hoax creators if the current title is too subjective. It seems like a meaningful, if weird, common claim to fame.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly this is POV given the subjective category introduction. After looking at a few articles they clearly fail the inclusion criteria listed. So it does appear that the inclusion here is either ignoring the criteria in the introduction or it is being misapplied. I don't think that renaming will help make any of this better. If someone can come up with a better definition and/or name then this type of category can be recreated. But in its current state the only option appears to be delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per keepers. The sample I looked at very all pretty solid. Johnbod (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American GULAG victims[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American GULAG victims to Category:American Gulag victims; Nominator's rationale: Rename. Moved from speedy due to opposition from creator. Renaming for consistency in capitalization with associated categories and articles. Snocrates 04:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename nomination

Category:American GULAG victims to Category:American Gulag victims. Although "Gulag" technically is an acronym, it is generally not all capitalized, though it is treated as a proper noun. — Snocrates 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, precisely because it is an acronym. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nominator). I can't find a single other instance of "Gulag" being all caps in WP. Main article is Gulag, main category is Category:Gulag, see also Category:Gulag uprisings and List of Gulag camps. The practice in English is clearly to not use all caps. (Incidentally, it is acceptable English in most English-speaking countries (all but the U.S., I believe) to not use all caps for pronounceable acronyms. It's quite common to see references to "Nato" and "Aids" in non-American sources, for example.) I'm willing to take this to a full CFD, but I really don't think it's necessary, personally, when WP seems to so consistently use one form of the acronym over another. Snocrates 03:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to full CFD at this point.

Rename per nom for consistency with everything else. LeSnail (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & those above. I note with approval that no one is suggesting this category is too small at 3 members (and unlikely to increase much I imagine). There must be more categories it could go in. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not that big a deal. I would suggest a superior solution, if consistency is the goal here, would be to change all other references in Wikipedia to all-uppercase to reflect the fact that it is indeed an acronym (albeit not an English one), but it's really not worth fighting over. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A little tricky with The Gulag Archipelago, no? In fact it is very easy to shown Gulag is by far the commonest term in English. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you look at that article you will see that when the title is written in Cyrillic Russian (rather than its Latin-alphabet transliteration) it is indeed in all caps. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 05:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we're talking about the common use in English, not Russian. This is the English WP. Regardless of what is used in Russian, we typically use what is most common in English. In English the most common usage in and out of WP is "Gulag". The title of the book in English was translated as The Gulag Archipelago, not The GULAG Archipelago. Snocrates 06:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The term is often spelled in English using lower case letters notwithstanding its origins as an acronym which is capitalized in Russian. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. Following the publication of The Gulag Archipelago, the word Gulag has passed into English as a term for Stalin's prison camp system. The result is the fact that it was originally a Russian acronym has been lost. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The spelling with lower case letters is much more common. Dimadick (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, for common usage and consistency. --Beloved Freak 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

International Hockey League[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Rename main category and subcategories to match the main article itself, International Hockey League (1945-2001). Flibirigit (talk) 03:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom for disambiguation purposes and consistency. Snocrates 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. Absolutely necessary given the other IHLs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all: Per the above; lets keep this consistent with the relevant article. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Not sure how I missed these ones when I had the relevant players cats moved. -Djsasso (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency. --Beloved Freak 18:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.