This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
Ha. Sensible, but I thought that was how it was done around here. The proposed name is C2C with
Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) players, but I'd be plenty happy with that being renamed as well. --
BDD (
talk) 16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose short nameCategory:Iowa Stars as ambiguous; categories should be unambiguous even where there is an article at the "main topic", because articles can have a disambiguation hatnote. IMHO the acceptable category names are the later name
Category:Iowa Chops or the unambiguous
Category:Iowa Stars (AHL). Note that the page was recently moved from Iowa Chops to Iowa Stars because the team had that name for longer. I would therefore be inclined to support the original nomination if it were at a full CfD. How about a
WP:BOLD move of the page
Iowa Stars to
Iowa Stars (AHL)? if there is no objection to that, then this can come back again as a valid C2D. As for the sub-cat, note that there are two:
Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) players and
Category:Iowa Chops players, presumably covering different periods; I do not know whether the usual practice would be to merge them. –
FayenaticLondon 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'd oppose a move of the article without an RM. There's no need to impose CfD requirements in mainspace. Looks like inertia is going to win out here. --
BDD (
talk) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I am documenting this only for the record. It is probably satisfactory to end up at this name "Iowa Stars" as it was used longest. –
FayenaticLondon 17:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)reply
This category is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles
Ha. Sensible, but I thought that was how it was done around here. The proposed name is C2C with
Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) players, but I'd be plenty happy with that being renamed as well. --
BDD (
talk) 16:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose short nameCategory:Iowa Stars as ambiguous; categories should be unambiguous even where there is an article at the "main topic", because articles can have a disambiguation hatnote. IMHO the acceptable category names are the later name
Category:Iowa Chops or the unambiguous
Category:Iowa Stars (AHL). Note that the page was recently moved from Iowa Chops to Iowa Stars because the team had that name for longer. I would therefore be inclined to support the original nomination if it were at a full CfD. How about a
WP:BOLD move of the page
Iowa Stars to
Iowa Stars (AHL)? if there is no objection to that, then this can come back again as a valid C2D. As for the sub-cat, note that there are two:
Category:Iowa Stars (AHL) players and
Category:Iowa Chops players, presumably covering different periods; I do not know whether the usual practice would be to merge them. –
FayenaticLondon 21:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I'd oppose a move of the article without an RM. There's no need to impose CfD requirements in mainspace. Looks like inertia is going to win out here. --
BDD (
talk) 16:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
I am documenting this only for the record. It is probably satisfactory to end up at this name "Iowa Stars" as it was used longest. –
FayenaticLondon 17:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)reply
