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 to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship winners, and merge all proposed. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 05:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Winners of All-Ireland medals by count (hurling) to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists

• Propose merging Category:Winners of one All-Ireland medal (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of two All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of three All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of four All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of five All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of six All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of seven All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of eight All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists
• Propose merging Category:Winners of ten All-Ireland medals (hurling)‎] to Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medalists

Nominator's rationale: The frequency of the medal is mostly not a more defining element than having won a medal in general - more often than not, it is the team the athlete played for when winning the medal that is far more definitive and could improve navigation. I suggest we rename the parent and merge all to a general medalists category, as per usual style. Note that contextualised information about number of medals won/with what team/when is already present at List of All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medal winners (and even List of hurlers with an All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship runners-up medal!) SFB 23:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems identical to my Order of Lenin nomination, below. Someone who won this award 7 times has as much in common with someone who won it 6 or 8 times as other 7-timers. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that in Irish English, as in British English, it's "medallists", with two 'l's. "Medalist" is American. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and RevelationDirect, and further per Marcocapelle #below. The number of receipts should simply be mentioned in the article, and isn't a useful basis for categorization. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:21, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to one category. However, I would prefer Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship medal winners: Hurling is a team sport, not field athletics (not like javelin or shotputting). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Peterkingiron: In which case, should we go for the simpler Category:All-Ireland Senior Hurling Championship winners instead? This avoids the medalist issue and is less redundant, seeing as the only way to win a medal is to win the competition. SFB 18:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have not investigated this in detail, but suspect that this is a cup-winners medal for the players in the winning team. I have not looked to see what the other Gaelic Sports do, but since they all are run by Gaelic Athletic Association, I expect the practice is similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2015 (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.

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. No enthusiasm and no strong argument for keeping Category:Universiade competitors has been evident, so I'm not going to merge to it. If it's non-defining to have been a Universiade competitor for a particular country, it's most likely non-defining to have been a Universiade competitor at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Universiade competitors by country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Building on the failed nomination in July:

The act of competing for a given country at the Universiade is not defining aspect for an athlete. This competition is not a top level one for any sport, in that only students may take part. Participation in this competition is not sufficiently defining of a person that they warrant direct navigation to their countryfolk who have also appeared at the event. Appearances are almost always a small part of a professional athlete's career and being selected for the Universiade is neither a story of note, nor an overall career objective for any sportsperson.

I believe the tree under Category:Competitors at multi-sport events by country should be used for open-class global or continental Games only. To have two categories (year of appearance and country) for each and every competition that an athlete has taken part in is excessive. One could say the current arrangement without expanding it further is already excessive, for example see Michael Frater. SFB 16:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as being non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment are your proposing to upmerge everything to Category:Universiade competitors ? Instead of a country's competitors, it would just be a competitor having competed. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nomination is on the basis that having competed at the competition is not defining, so this logically includes that category too. I'll add it to the nomination seeing as I don't think it changes the substance of the arguments so far presented. SFB 18:25, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, scratch that, as I see Peter mentions other possibilities. On that basis, if others suggest an upmerge to the non-country parent is preferable then I think that's a better outcome than failing the country nomination on this other issue of competing overall. I've removed the parent category from nomination. SFB 18:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in principle (perhaps upmerge)-- I suspect that this is about what used to be called the World Student Games. Since the competitors are students, they are presumably not professional athletes. In that case we should not have a category for them. However there may be some who go on to become professional athletes: having previously competed at this event. One category for the competitors at each holding of the event, plus appearing in a national sport category should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2015 (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.

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^discuss 08:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Upmerging (2) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (3) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, three times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (4) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, four times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (5) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, five times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (6) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, six times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (7) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, seven times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (8) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, eight times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (9) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, nine times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (10) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, ten times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (11) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, eleven times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin
• Propose Upmerging (12) Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin, twelve times to Category:Recipients of the Order of Lenin

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:SMALLCAT

These aren't different degrees or levels of the award, these are people who received the same award twice or a dozen times. In the Soviet Union, the Order of Lenin was the highest decoration awarded except for 1944-1957 but, since this award is no longer issued, none of these categories have any room for growth.. I'm sympathetic that the parent category is large enough to need diffusion, but this breakdown isn't defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a single category could become unwieldy, as others have, what "diffusion" criteria would you support? Ones that occur to me are: occupation (eg, political & Politburo, military, science, etc), nationality (eg, foreign & the various Soviet nationalities), time periods (eg, by date, conflict, etc). I still contend that the higher frequencies reflect those who are in political favour, therefore of interest and distinctive. I'll see how the discussion developes before deciding my view. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concern about diffusion, although these subcategoriess are only diffusing a small percentage anyway. The obvious breakdown would be by SSR but I suspect a large majority would by Russian. If it is clear that awards were granted on non-subjective categories (military, science) etc that would work too and I'm inferring from the articles that this is the case but not all of them explicitly say why the award was given. Determining why the award was given in the 1944-1957 time frame is important because this award award served double duty during that time to recognize 25 years of military service which isn't defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:TRIVIALCAT, the frequency of receiving is a triviality, e.g. the people who received the order five times have nothing more in common with each other than they have in common with people who received it twice. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, an exploratory question: does your opinion include multiple awards categories for all awards, eg, the British Victoria Cross and Distinguished Service Order, the German Iron Cross? As a discussion point I would suggest that those who received this and other Soviet awards by the bucketload (eg Leonid Brezhnev) did differ from those who merited 1 or 2. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it does. And I'm not impressed by the example of Brezhnev who was much better known by other reasons than the amount of awards. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The award should clearly be categorised so there's no problem with categorising multiple awards separately. Hardly "category clutter" is it? Still only one category per article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom and Marcocapelle. The number of receipts should simply be mentioned in the article, and isn't a useful basis for categorization. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:19, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all into one category. The number of times awarded to a person ought not to be worth a separate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2015 (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.

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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution

• Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution, twice

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEFINING

During the 24 years that the Soviet Union issued this award, 106,462 were handed out per the article so over 4,000 per year. Recent nominations have implied that there may be a consensus that top-level national awards are defining but this is only a second-level award--the highest being the Order of Lenin. Most telling though is the actual articles: most either don't mention the award at all or only include it in a list of other awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The notified Folks at 137 as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; this is a 2nd level award and therefore its receipt is "defining". Does this opinion re 2nd level awards apply universally? If so, the principle should be discussed first - explicitly. Folks at 137 (talk) 08:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OCAWARD really just references WP:NONDEFINING without giving too much further guidance. The consensus in discussions has varied significantly with different discussions, but often suggests that top-level awards in a profession/country/military are usually defining but lower level awards more often are not. So, for instance, receiving an Academy Award is defining but receiving a Kids' Choice Award is not. My approach is usually to look at the actual articles and see how much of a focus the award is. We may still disagree but maybe that background makes my perspective clearer.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Any decoration awarded by a state for merit as opposed to those just awarded for routine service should be categorised. For God's sake, Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal was kept at CfD and that's just awarded for being unlucky. Any attempts to delete cats for meritorious awards would show clear systemic bias against non-English-speaking countries. Hasn't the recent trouble over these category deletions taught anyone anything? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: The Purple Heart nomination was grouped with another award and ended in no consensus back in 2012. I was thinking of giving it another go. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't take away from the fact that the award currently under consideration is for merit, not being unlucky. How many Bronze Stars have been awarded by the USA? They're often handed out like sweets. How many long-serving American combat veterans haven't got one? Yet we have Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal. I'd like to see you try to get that deleted! There would be outrage. That's what I mean about systemic bias. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: 17,498 Bronze Stars were issued as of 2004 and it started in 1944, so about 292 a year. So the Bronze Star is about 20 times rarer (per year issued) than this award. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the award. Merge in the double-awards. This is a major national award made mainly by a state to its own citizens and is useful as independent evidence of notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-defining award for those who recieved it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you know this how? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2015 (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.

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/delete as in modified nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1637 establishments in New Sweden to Category:17th-century establishments in New Sweden, Category:1637 establishments in North America and Category:1637 establishments in the Swedish colonial empire struck per discussion below
• Propose merging Category:1638 establishments in New Sweden to Category:17th-century establishments in New Sweden, Category:1638 establishments in North America and Category:1638 establishments in the Swedish colonial empire struck per discussion below
• Propose merging Category:1641 establishments in New Sweden to Category:17th-century establishments in New Sweden, Category:1641 establishments in North America and Category:1641 establishments in the Swedish colonial empire struck per discussion below
• Propose merging Category:1646 establishments in New Sweden to Category:17th-century establishments in New Sweden, Category:1646 establishments in North America and Category:1646 establishments in the Swedish colonial empire struck per discussion below
• Propose merging Category:1653 establishments in New Sweden to Category:17th-century establishments in New Sweden, Category:1653 establishments in North America and Category:1653 establishments in the Swedish colonial empire struck per discussion below
• Propose merging Category:17th century in New Sweden to Category:New Sweden, Category:17th century in North America and Category:17th century in the Swedish colonial empire
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in New Sweden by year
• Propose deleting Category:Establishments in New Sweden by century

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only 5 establishment articles in this entire tree easily fit in a single category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though I admit I'm largely at fault for these, support movement to 17th century establishments in New Sweden (decades would just have one-two articles each either way), along with merger to 17th century in New Sweden. Support keeping it within same year categories for North America (those have a number of subcategories). But we should just also merge them to 17th century century for the Swedish colonial empire. Category:17th-century establishments in the Swedish colonial empire is nothing more than a wrapper essentially for the New Sweden categories with the same years and Category:17th-century establishments in Sweden doesn't have a lot more than the colonial empire stuff for these three decades without too much problems. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, that simply means that the nominated categories do not need to be merged to Category:1637 establishments in the Swedish colonial empire etc., while we keep Category:17th-century establishments in New Sweden being parented to Category:17th-century establishments in the Swedish colonial empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As someone who works a lot with these (mostly) Delaware articles, there is a lot of room for improving individual articles but there aren't many uncovered topics that could lead to additional articles. No objection to recreating though if someone proves me wrong and brings one of these up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge most. New Sweden existed only 1638-1655. Any split by century is pointless; even a split by decade is nearly as bad, since there can only be three decades. Accordingly, the targets should be 16xx in North America; Category:Establishments in New Sweden and Category:Disestablishments in New Sweden. Sweden did not have a "colonial empire", though it had colonies: a brief occupation of part of the Gold Coast, and two islands in the West Indies, one very briefly: see Swedish overseas colonies. I would suggest that the parent should become Category:17th-century establishments in Swedish overseas colonies to match that main article. "Swedish Empire" refers to something different: Sweden plus Finland, the Baltic provinces and certain duchies in north Germany (owned 1648-c.1720). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While not disagreeing, I would suggest to leave the discussion about "colonial empire" for another time, the proposed merge is complex enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2015 (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.

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/delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1655 disestablishments in New Sweden‎ to Category:1655 disestablishments in North America‎ and Category:1655 disestablishments in the Swedish colonial empire‎
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in New Sweden by year
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in New Sweden by century‎
• Propose deleting Category:17th-century disestablishments in New Sweden‎
• Propose deleting Category:1650s disestablishments in New Sweden‎
• Propose deleting Category:Disestablishments in New Sweden by decade‎
• Propose deleting Category:1655 in New Sweden‎

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per the spirit of WP:C1, the only disestablishment article in this New Sweden tree is the disestablishment of New Sweden itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. Although there could be more, it's just a matter of lack of content to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Right now, the only articles I see is New Sweden which is confusing. If this were to be recreated later, Category:Disestablishments in New Sweden should be sufficient for the article count. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but the target should be Category:Disestablishments in New Sweden, if this is worth having at all, when it was New Sweden itself that was disestablihsed! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal is actually to not keep this in the New Sweden category. Based on your reaction I guess you won't disagree with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2015 (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.

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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Public domain images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries to Category:Images ineligible for copyright in the United States but not in their source countries

Nominator's rationale: "Public domain" is misleading. In fact, we should respect local laws that certain images may apply. For instance, the United Kingdom can consider less original logos copyrightable enough, like the logo of Edge (magazine). We can't consider them free just because the US says so in regards to non-US works. Georgie says "Happy Halloween!" (BOO!) 05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Concern About Category @George Ho: I was just glancing on the first page and File:Anglia Television.svg, File:31 Songs.jpg, File:AfricaWorldAirlinesLogo.png and these all look perfectly copyrightable in the U.S. I assume that, when the images are loaded, the editor says "This is public domain because it consists entirely of typefaces, individual words, handwriting, slogans, or simple geometric shapes" but they are often (usually?) wrong. No objection to proposed rename but I'm wondering how workable the underlying topic is. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31 Songs is definitely non-free in the US. As for Anglia, it's not eligible for copyright in the US; it has blue and yellow triangles and a common quadrilateral forming a letter "A". Look at examples in commons:COM:TOO#United States. I'll find copyright laws of Ghana soon; no comment on AWA. --George Ho (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since we can have little confidence in the legal analysis of users who upload, reviewers who review, and administrators who speedily or decline to speedily delete alleged copyright infringements, the whole category is misleading. If we cannot do it properly, we should just say so and not try to say otherwise and make a mess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Carlossuarez46. I especially note that every example I've seen so far relies on the assessment that the image is too simple to copyright, which is especially questionable. Perhaps half of what I've seen are trademarked and therefore not really free anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful tracking category for ((PD-ineligible-USonly)). Without this category, it would be more difficult to find files with that copyright tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefan2: Rename the category or retain the current name? George Ho (talk) 07:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever, as long as the category isn't deleted. These days, most categories tend to use the word 'file' instead of 'image', so it might be useful to change that word in the template. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no opinion on rename This category is useful to distinguish between files by their copyright status. This is a job that needs to be done (for WP:NFC/WP:NFCC policy enforcement and also to help using the free material) regardless of whether this category exists or not, and there will always be some amount of miscategoized/misclassified files. Worth noting also that trademarks and foreign copyrights (unlike say on Commons) are not pertinent to free/non-free status, as noted on Wikipedia:Copyrights.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:41, 15 December 2015 (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.