Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 12 February 14 >

February 13[edit]

Wrestling and professional wrestling[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: keep and repopulate the categories. Fish+Karate 08:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would pro wrestling categories ever be at a MMA article?★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Which martial arts categories are you referring to? Right now Category:Professional wrestling is categorized as Category:Mock combat, Category:Sports entertainment, and Category:Theatrical combat.
As I asked you in the discussion, you again mention " English Wikipedia allows somewhat loose connections within the category tree" which is why I mentioned WP:SUBCAT did not seem to agree with that. What are you basing this "loose connection" criteria on? Should baseball be listed as a subcat of basketball because both could be shortened to BBall, making them loosely connected? Similarly, should Category:Cricket be a subcat of Category:Baseball because they are played similarly although very different? No, they shouldn't be, which is why they aren't.
The other key factor in my opinion, which the nominator disagrees with, is WP:NSPORT already classifies professional wrestling as entertainment, not sport. How can we justify basing a person's inclusion on wikipedia based on something non-sport related then classify them as an athlete. It does not follow proper logic. It is possible someone like Bill Goldberg would fail WP:NSPORT but because of his college football days be classified as a sportperson for categories, but this is the exception, not the rule. Most professional wrestlers began training exclusively for it at a young age.
A person like Kurt Angle who won an Olympic gold medal in wrestling, had to train for 2 years because he could become a professional wrestler. Similarly wrestlers are regulated by state athletic commissions. Professional wrestling is excluded from this, and athletic commissions do not regulate professional wrestling.
A professional wrestling match, such as a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match or Hardcore wrestling in general share no similarities to Wrestling other than the name. - GalatzTalk 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The relations between English Wikipedia categories are often discussed at WP:CAT. User:Postdlf recently summed up current practice well, here (that conversation is now archived here). – Fayenatic London 09:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate, and WP:TROUT those who emptied them without a CfD discussion.
There are 2 reasons to keep:
  1. Practical: To assist readers and editors who may not be aware of the distinction between professional wrestling and sport wrestling. Better to have a base category as a starting point than leave readers unable to find what they are looking for. Per WP:CAT, en.wp categories exist to facilitate navigation by readers. They are not some sort of purist taxonomy.
  2. Logical: The distinction between sport and entertainment lacks a sharp boundary. In reality, there is a huge overlap.
All professional sport is to some extent a form of commercialised entertainment, in which a large number of people pay money to be entertained by a small number of skilled performer. Just like theatre, film, tv and circus, professional sport lives or dies by its ability to attract paying spectators, whether in person or through the media.
If there was a sharp line to drawn anywhere, it would be better drawn between professional sport and amateur sport, because the latter is sustained by the enthusiasm of the participants rather than the commerce of a paying audience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why couldn't {{Category see also}} solve the problem of the confusion? Additionally in my opinion, you are looking at this backwards. You are saying all sports have commercialized entertainment, but professional wrestling is entertainment that mimics sport. Rather than comparing this to baseball being a form of entertainment, its more like considering Charlie Sheen to be a pitcher because of Major League (film). - GalatzTalk 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz:
  1. You're still not looking at this from the viewpoint of a reader. For any country "Foo", they should be able to go to a Category:Fooian wrestlers and find all the wrestlers, whether directly or in subcats. The reader should not have to know in advance about the distinctions.
  2. A non-specialist editor who doesn't know about the distinctions should be able to categorise a biog in Category:Fooian wrestlers. A more knowledgeable editor can refine later, but without Category:Fooian wrestlers there will be nothing for them to refine.
  3. entertainment that mimics sport is a description which many amateur sportspeople would use to describe those who engage in highly-paid commercial activity which mimics the form of leisure pursuits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Most sports being "commercialized entertainment" is irrelevant, because pro wrestling as an artform that it is today is not a sport at all.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Professional baseball or football is not like professional wrestling. Modern pro wrestling is theater with athletic elements.★Trekker (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: I see where you are coming from, and that's obviously a valid viewpoint. But it's not the only valid viewpoint.
OED defines sport as "An activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment". Pro wrestling fits that definition.
Categorising wrestling under sport helps readers who take that view. It does no harm to anyone else. So what's the problem? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Pro wrestling does absolutely not fit that description. There is no competition more than there are for actors to get good roles, and acting is not a sport. I dont' mean to come of as rude, but I feel I need to be as blunt as possible about the fact that Wikipeda should under no circumstances try to enforce the idea that pro wrestling is a sport.★Trekker (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: you don't come across as rude, but your language of absolutely, blunt and enforce makes you come across as someone with a very black-and-white approach who has discovered WP:THETRUTH and is closed both to other perspectives and to the history of professional wrestling. It's quite clear that in some eras, pro wrestling has indeed been a form of professional sport.
Categorising pro wrestlers a few layers down below sport absolutely does not try to enforce the idea that pro wrestling is a sport; it just helps readers to navigate, which is what categories are for. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it hasn't been a sport for pretty much a hundred years now. That seems rather outdated to go on.★Trekker (talk) 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: see WP:RECENTISM. In the span of recorded human history, a hundred years is a short time. My grandpa was retired on a pension only ninety years ago. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's completely irrelevant since pro wrestling has only been around for about 150 years. It's been a staged act for most of that and even when it was supposedly a sport it kinda wasn't. Either way I'm tired of this inane discussion, you can talk all you want about how categories don't need to be "classifications" or whatever and only need to be "helpful" (God good I wish that argument would have helped me at other times) but in the end you still tried to claim at one point that pro wrestling could be considered a sport by some definitions so forgive me if I think this discussion has jumped the shark. If it only needs to be for the readers sake how about just use the {{cat more|}} or "see also" template instead?★Trekker (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: For a bit of background for you, the whole reason this became an issue to begin with is someone went around adding everything professional wrestling into Sport. They said professional wrestlers needed to be categorized as sportpeople, they said events need to be categorized as sport events, etc. Their rationale was that professional wrestling was a subcat of wrestling which was a subcat of sport. Would I be interpreting your comments correctly in stating that you feel the categories should be Sport -- > Wrestling --> Professional wrestling, however professional wrestling events should not be considered sport events, but rather entertainment events, etc? You merely feel it helps people navigate and does not reclassify everything as a sport. - GalatzTalk 02:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz: Two points:
  1. I cannot stress enough the reminder made early on by @Fayenatic london: en.wp categories are not a form of "classification"; they are a tool of navigation. Both you and @*Treker seem rixated on the misconception that this is an exercise in classification, which it isn't.
    Fayenatic london linked to a comment[1] elsewhere by @Postdlf, which is worth quoting in full:

    Categories have always functioned more as webs of related content rather than strict hierarchies. You can't necessarily impute membership of an article to a category "generations" above its immediate parent categories. To treat it otherwise would swim against the tide of over a decade of practice, and break up relationships such that the resulting category structure would consist in a series of discrete and isolated ladders

  2. Contemporary professional wrestling contains elements of sport, and at many times and places in its history it has very much been professional sport. You and *Treker seem fixated on one view of contemporary professional wrestling, without regard to the fuzziness or to the history.
So basically, yes -- we can sidestep the question of whether and to what extent it is sport or entertainment, and concentrate on helping non-expert readers and editors find content.
An analogy: gladiators in ancient Rome. Depending on POV, they were sportspeople or entertainers or torture victims or exploited underlings. If you avoid binary thinking, it's probably best to view them as a mixture of all those attributes. So even tho I'd argue that "sport" was one of the weaker elements, it's quite correct that Category:Roman gladiators is a subcat of Category:Ancient Roman sportspeople ... because it helps readers navigate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I understand your point however I do not feel that stick it in the incorrect category helps people find it. You state categories are not a form of "classification"; they are a tool of navigation however putting something into a subcategory it does not belong in, you are hurting people's ability to navigate not helping. For example, if someone is looking at Category:Los Angeles and they want to know about professional wrestling there, most would not think, ah it must be in Category:Sports in Los Angeles, they would not see Category:Professional wrestling in Los Angeles with it being in Sports, they would see no Category:Entertainment in Los Angeles, so they would assume there is no such category and move on. How is that helpful? - GalatzTalk 03:45, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Galatz: Did you actually read the nominator's proposal?
The situation you describe won't arise, because nobody in this discussion has proposed removing professional wrestlers from entertainer categories; if they did, I would of course oppose that.
This discussion is about adding professional wrestlers indirectly to sport categories (via "fooian wrestlers"), to provide an extra navigational path. The existing path remains untouched. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: This is comment has nothing to do with the original proposal. I understand everything about why you are saying it adds clarity when someone is looking at wrestlers. I am talking about what happened way before this even started. What I am saying is this:
Your !vote is to include professional wrestling as a subcat under wrestling. I am asking you to clarify this. To me it sounds like you are saying just because professional wrestling is under wrestling it does not mean everything should be reclassified as a sport. Should professional wrestling events be listed as events or sport events? Should professional wrestlers be under sportpeople or entertainers? - GalatzTalk 04:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have less of an issue with this idea than having it listed as a subcat under a category that lists sport wrestlers. The issue is though that wrestling is still considered a sport when professional wrestling promotions do not consider themselves sports organization, and state athletic commissions do not consider them to be athletes. So why should wikipedia consider them athletes? - GalatzTalk 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Easy. Category:Wrestlers should not be in any sports or entertainment category; Category:Professional wrestlers should be in the 'entertainment' tree but not the sports; Category:Sport wrestlers and Category:Sumo wrestlers should in contrast be in the 'sports' tree. Ditto for all national subcats. Oculi (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: That would make sense to me. The fact that wrestling is a subcat for all sorts of sports categories is what made this become an issue to begin with. What categories would it be a subcat of then? - GalatzTalk 12:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is a good question, I can't think of any suitable parent. An alternative proposal (very closely related though) is to turn Wrestlers categories into disambiguation pages, linking to Sports wrestlers and Pro wrestlers. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that all the wrestling categories can remain populated, and be parented by Martial arts. The "wrestlers" categories can also be parented by "people by occupation" categories, as siblings to "sportspeople" and "entertainers". – Fayenatic London 13:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we agree that wrestlers may be either sportspeople or entertainers, a single parent Category:People by occupation is slightly inaccurate, as it is actually two different occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's very true.★Trekker (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of "Wrestling" and "Wrestlers" as the parent category for articles on the professional and sport varieties – that should be the obvious choice for anyone with either basic or academic knowledge of the topic. I have no problem with the professional kind being listed under sports as a "scripted sport". It's an edge case that will continue to challenge our notion of what a sport is – linguistically speaking, a notion of sport which excludes something like professional wrestling is very modern, as circus feats (when people still regularly saw that kind of thing) very much fell within the notion of sport. (A cynic might argue that modern-day boxing and horse racing are also questionable as pre-determined sports...) SFB 02:31, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cynics would be idiots to compare it to wrestling.★Trekker (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2018 (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:Transdev Group companies[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was a WP:C2D speedy nomination to rename to Category:Transdev. It's not a bad idea, even tho it doesn't strictly fit C2D ... but given the company history (see Transdev/Transdev (historic)), I wonder if it might be better to more clearly distinguish the two incarnations. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion at speedy
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:Scholars and academics by discipline[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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, neither of the two categories has an explanation on the category page, and based on the current content it is not obvious by what criteria the two categories are divided. (Both categories have been tagged.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I prefer "subject". Discipline is not as common and more ambiguous.Rathfelder (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (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:Wikipedians who study using Osmosis[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparent joke usercat —swpbT go beyond 19:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a joke; Osmosis is a commonly-used medical study tool, see [2] Myoglobin (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Myoglobin: so it's not a joke, But per WP:USERCAT "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". How does this category assist collaboration between editors ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I see your point, and perhaps the category should be removed. I only created it to go along with the userbox I made for Osmosis users. One possible valid use for the category would be for those working with Osmosis on the open-source videos used in many WP medical articles. Myoglobin (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Myoglobin: That sounds to me like a valid purpose for a usercat. Do you think this one will actually be used that way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not sure; that depends on who exactly is helping with those videos (I don't actually know). I would assume that they are/were at one point health students using Osmosis, so it's definitely possible. My main target for this category + ubx is current medical students; the idea being this would help identify users that might possibly be interested in helping with the WP/Osmosis collaboration. Myoglobin (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @Myoglobin describes a collaborative use for this usercat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Originally I was going to support some sort of rename, but after looking into this further, There isn't even an article on Osmosis.org, what this category is specifically referring to. This appears to be a category for Wikipedians who use a website not even notable enough for its own Wikipedia page as a study tool - is that inaccurate? It's incredibly speculative to suggest that someone in this category would be interested in collaborating on anything whatsoever (how does using a website as a study tool suggest willingness to collaborate on a topic?), let alone various open source videos. We have an established category system for Wikiproject participants, which seems much more appropriate here if that is the goal. Perhaps Catgory:Wikproject Osmosis participants? This would be like keeping (the hypothetical) Category: Wikipedians who study using BarBri because you think that such Wikipedians may be likely to wish to collaborate on legal articles - Wishful thinking, and high potential to introduce miscategorization (Just because I use a study tool should not imply I have an interest in collaborating on a particular topic). VegaDark (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2018 (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:Disco songs by year[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: merge to Category:YYYY songs if needed, otherwise plainly delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Included in this nomination are the following related categories to the one above:
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for categorization of songs by genre by year (no 1964 rock songs, no 1998 pop songs, etc.), and I don't see a need for one without it resulting in overcategorization and adding another avenue for genre warring. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it alone. I think we should have genre by year categories. I'd be happy to create more categories for other genres. --Pieceofgarbage (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Genre is such a moveable feast. Besides the arguments about what is and what is not a 'disco song' etc. it must be remembered that genre is the result of arrangement, not the song, so genre song is wrong. plain and simple (not that I am advocating any creation of any alternative cat scheme). --Richhoncho (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2018 (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:Multi-sport sailing competitions in the United States[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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:32, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation Smartskaft (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (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:Star World Championships in the United States[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation Smartskaft (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2018 (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:Sailing at the Summer Olympics in the United States[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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, there are no other similiar categories like this in the category tree, (Category:Swimming at the Summer Olympics in the United States et cetera) Smartskaft (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- It is overkill to have a separate category for when the Olympics happen to have been in USA. I assume the items categorises are altready in an appropriate Olympic tree(s), so htat there is no need for a multiple merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2018 (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:Flow network[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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of a speedy nomination which I contested on procedural grounds. Speedy nominator @David Eppstein seems to understand the topic, but I know nothing about it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion at speedy
  • Category:Flow network rename to Category:Network flow problem — C2D. This was recently renamed from Category:Network flow to Category:Flow network but that is the wrong name for this topic. "Network flow" is the name used in the literature for the general topic; a flow network is a specific type of mathematical object that is used as an input to a network flow problem and "flow network" does not describe other aspects of the subject such as specific types of flow problem to be solved and algorithms to solve them; "network flow" covers the whole topic. The article flow network has been demoted from its main-article status (it should not have been main article) and a new article Network flow problem put in its place. I would actually be happier with the original name Category:Network flow rather than the proposed name, but that name goes to a dab article rather than to an article on this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as speedy. @David Eppstein: you make a good case, but it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: Perhaps you can explain why the move to the wrong name was a C2D speed but now that the main article has been changed to the right name it can no longer be a C2D speedy again? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: because the case accepted then was the proposed change met WP:C2D. Whether or not that decision was wrong, you make no such case ... so this needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The main article is now the proposed new category name, "Network flow problem". In what way does this not meet C2D? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Eppstein: because it wasn't the main article until you just WP:BOLDly made it so. So there is no consensus whether you are right, neither consensus-by-stability nor consensus-by-discussion; the point of C2D is that it is based on a consensus rather than on one editor's decision, no matter how wise they are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 11 February 2018 (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:UK Polaris programme[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: procedural close. The head article is at UK Polaris programme, and category names usually follow articles. In this case, it seems that @Hawkeye7 intended to correctly launch a WP:RM discussion as a followup to Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)#Requested_move_2_February_2018, but something went wrong: the article has been tagged[3] for this CfD, but the category wasn't. So I am closing this CfD, and point Hawkeye7 to the guidance at WP:RM#CM. If there is a consensus to rename the article,then the category can be speedily renamed per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match Trident (UK nuclear programme). There was overwhelming consensus for such a rename. This category needs renaming to match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 13 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_13&oldid=871693717"