Talk:Unicode collation algorithm

Computing Stub‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Whats "tailoring" in this context? Theres no explanation here and I cant find other articles to wikilink. Shinhan 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode collation algorithm → Unicode Collation Algorithm — Change to official case (proper noun). Chealer (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Oppose, lets keep the lowercase one. As I read it, the title is also a correct description of the thing. Therefor we do not need to use the proper name. e.g. think of naming it "Collation (Unicode)" for this same page (is not a proposal, but to illustrate my point). But maybe I do not see enough. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't get the sense that UCA is a proper name in the same sense as George Washington is a proper name. We don't capitalize binary search, quicksort, or shellsort. There's only one George, but there may be many implementations (and even copies of those implementations) of the algorithm. It doesn't refer to a particular individual. Glrx (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.