< July 22 July 24 >

July 23

Category:Capcom heroes

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 debate was merge ×Meegs 10:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Capcom heroes to Category:Capcom characters
Nominator's rationale: Merge - per strong consensus against "hero" categories and to make sure each entry is categorized by company. Otto4711 23:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support merger but perhaps try Category:Capcom protagonists first? CaveatLectorTalk 03:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedent is against using any POV words like hero, villain, protagonist, antagonist and the like for fictional characters. The reasoning is that since characters' allegiances are not fixed assigning them to a role is problematic and could result in the same character being categorized in multiple such categories. Otto4711 13:32, 25 July 2007 (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:Film based video games

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 debate was delete. The cat is empty, and as Pegship says, we have both ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Films based on video games and ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Video games based on films. ×Meegs 10:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Film based video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category, already exists as Category:Video games based on films. Ebyabe 22:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Isn't there some sort of speedy delete rationale this fits? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. The second-mentioned category was created first, so the first is redundant. --Eliyak T·C 23:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already moved any that weren't in the one into the other, so the newer category is empty now. -Ebyabe 23:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As I dont think this is a repeat category. One is about films based on video games, such as Mortal Kombat (film) while the other is about the exact opposite; video games based on films, such as Jaws: Unleashed.(Animedude 21:53, 24 July 2007 (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:Konami heroes

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 debate was merge to Category:Konami characters. ×Meegs 10:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Konami heroes to Category:Konami player characters
Nominator's rationale: Rename for the sake of neutrality. Lenin and McCarthy
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:Distinguished Eagle Scouts

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 debate was no consensus (here, or in the previous debate). The proposal to rename the cat to reduce ambiguity received very little attention, and should be reconsidered in the future. ×Meegs 11:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts to Category:Eagle Scouts
Nominator's rationale: Up Merge. As an award it is not a defining characteristic. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Eagle Scout award. There is no need to listify since these individuals are already listed in List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). Vegaswikian 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close for now(Other debate finished now) Both categories are still covered by an open nomination to delete, which may well succeed. This is premature. Johnbod 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Acutally, it's a dead heat right now, that's "no consensus" where I come from.Rlevse 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this category is not being discussed in the other discussion and this discussion has been noted there. Vegaswikian 20:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
??? Both the categories you want to merge are nominated for deletion. You should not have altered the tag on the category, btw. Rlevse, dead heats tend to end in deletion closes at CfD. Johnbod 21:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A dead heat is not consensus so it can not be deleted based on the guidelines. If it is, then it would be recreated in deletion review. If you want, just close this discussion. It will be recreated when the other one is closed as no consensus. Vegaswikian 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Several minority-won deletion decisions here have been upheld at deletion review. See Kdbank's comments there now on the "100 caps" discussion. Regardless of how the other discussion is going, we should not have two discussions open on the same two categories at the same time. Basic stuff. Johnbod 00:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably meaning one will be deleted - in which case how do you merge the two? Oh well, let's wait and see. Johnbod 15:49, 25 July 2007 (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:Terminator in popular culture

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 debate was delete. ×Meegs 11:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terminator in popular culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with little potential for expansion (I hope). Both of the articles are already in the broader "In popular culture" parent category and, quite frankly, ought to be deleted themselves. That being neither here nor there for this nomination, this category is still completely unnecessary and should be deleted. Otto4711 16:34, 23 July 2007 (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:Rape victims

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 debate was delete. --bainer (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rape victims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Closer's notes
This was a complicated and charged debate involving a range of different arguments that were not necessarily easy to reconcile with one another.

The arguments in favour of deletion included:

  • verifiability issues with determining the category's contents
  • significant definitional issues (not just to do with differing legal definitions across jurisdictions, but to do with the scope of the category, viz whether the category should include self-identifying victims or anyone identified as a victim, whether the category should limit itself to victims as established in judicial proceedings or extend as far as alleged victims, and whether it should include living people or not)
  • biographies of living persons issues, not only relating to victims but to alleged perpetrators
  • that the category has no compelling encyclopaedic value (at least in category form; the possible alternative of a list does not seem to have been discussed to any significant extent)
  • that the category system, which is essentially a collection of labels, is simply not suited to presenting material of this complex nature, and that this is best left to article text.

Additionally, several editors referred to standards of journalistic ethics, primarily in relation to the definitional issue of the category's scope.

In terms of arguments in favour of keeping, almost the only argument offered was that the category is useful. Some other arguments invoked other difficult to maintain categories to suggest that this category should be kept despite its own difficluties. Several editors asked those people seeking to keep the article to ennumerate the benefits to the encyclopaedia of keeping the category, and little or nothing was offered in response.

The closest to a substantive response as to the value of the category was from Dekkappai:

"Don't people know about Women's studies, Gender studies, Criminology, Sex and the law? etc., etc.... Any number of other important areas of study investigate rape. Intentionally hiding this sort of classification certainly won't make the crime go away-- as some seem to imply, and it will certainly hinder this sort of research."

Similarly, DanielEng noted that:

"The current thinking of most rape advocacy groups is to encourage survivors to come forward and share their names and stories, with the idea of showing solidarity, support and making it clear that rape is a real issue that could happen to anyone."

However, Xtifr later said that:

"I don't think it's really a BLP issue, but I do think that it's not really a defining characteristic of many of these people. Rape is (unfortunately) not uncommon, and I think we may end up with a semi-random collection of people with little or nothing in common except one minor (from a historical perspective if not a personal one) incident in their lives."

It should be noted that the survivor's group lists that DanielEng linked to (example) are just that: lists. It should also be noted that it is certainly not the practice of such groups, or of people within those academic fields, to reduce a person who has been raped down to a mere label of "victim", which, as Xtifr and a number of others observed, is essentially the only thing that categories can do.

That there was virtually no agreement in this debate as to how to define the category's scope - even among those arguing to keep the category - weighs significantly in favour of deletion. Add to that the paucity of argument as to what benefits the category has to the encyclopaedia, the strong basis in policy of the arguments on biographies of living persons and verifiability issues, and that the problems identified in the debate are essentially inherent to the crude simplicity of the category system and thus unresolveable, the result was clearly in favour of deletion.

As a postscript, it appears that the development of a list or lists instead of this category was not considered in this debate, though, in my view, it should be considered in the future. --bainer (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Originally speedied by User:Zscout370 as a potential magnet for WP:BLP violations, after it was unilaterally depopulated by User:SqueakBox. The category's creator, User:Taprobanus, put a complaint on WP:ANI. SqueakBox had done this once before, and another admin (namely User:Pascal.Tesson) said it wasn't a speedy candidate and warned him. I tend to agree and therefore I have listed it here; No vote. ugen64 16:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment Rape has different meanings in different countries. A person convicted of rape in one country could be acquitted in another country even if the circumstances were exactly the same. Does that mean the victim was not raped? What about a person who self-identifies as a rape victim, who's case goes to trial and the trial results in an acquittal? Does that self-identified person stay in the list, or come off the list? It's a daft catagory, and it needs to go. Very many bad things will happen if it stays. Dan Beale 16:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like what bad things ? Thanks Taprobanus 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious BLP stuff about the accused and accusser, edit warring over a definition of rape, edit warring over whether certain people go on the list or not. Dan Beale 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the point is ?, I dont want to be flippant but isnt that the reality of an open source project like this?, to figure out what and what not belongs not just kind a build a fence around certain categories and say we are not going to deal with it because that is the limit of open source ?Taprobanus 15:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And so, whilst we're noodling about on Wikipedia trying to see who fits the cat, and making sure there's clear attributable verifiable sources for people-accused-of-rape there's people in the real world having to live what we're saying about them, on top of the media speculation. Do no harm should be an important part of wiki bios, and this cat doesn't help that. Dan Beale 00:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Following that logic, we would need to get rid of all categories related to crimes, since all laws differ between countries. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not follow. Rape is one of the most serious crimes in many countries - a person identifying as a rape victim might have identified a rapist. Is wiki liable for BLP stuff if we list the rape victim, especially before \ during trial? Dan Beale 23:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Applying a category comes from a judgment based on the material about the subject. If the differences between countries about rape are so vast, then sort the category for different countries or regions. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at the caution regarding using this category Taprobanus 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at the caution regarding using this category Taprobanus 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please look at the caution regarding using this category Taprobanus 17:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "caustion"? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I added to the body of the category-(Caution:So as not to violate WP:BLP requirements this category needs to used only for people who are deceased). Hence we will be able to assure no living person shall be affected by this category per WP:BLP. Such cautions and messages work very well in other controversial categories. Thanks Taprobanus 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ann says, for many years, that Bob raped her many times. Ann dies. Can you really put Ann on the list? Even if Bob has no convictions? Dan Beale 00:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't think "verifiable" should be synonymous with "court conviction." Almost 60% of rapes go unreported; for rapes perpetrated against intimate partners and children that figure is even higher. Many victims go decades before they tell someone what happened. Does that mean the 60% of victims are not credible? We don't expect people who publicly claim they've been bullied or assaulted in other ways to always provide police proof, because much of the time it doesn't exist. We have articles about people with drug addictions who have never been arrested for their use. We list religious affiliations for people without expecting to see religious documents; instead we trust what they say in interviews. We take them at their word. Why should it be any different for survivors of sexual assault?DanielEng 02:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIt's different because it's not just the survivor of sexual assault that possibly categorised, there's a possibility for someone accused of assault to be identified too. I guess I'm saying that if this catagory stays there's a bunch of other stuff that needs to happen: The information about any accused person needs to be very clearly attributed. I'm not convinced that's going to happen. Also, the thing about definition of rape differing hasn't been covered yet. Dan Beale 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The two are not mutually exclusive, though. I do agree with you that information about any identifiable person accused of rape needs to be very, very clearly attributed. We obviously can't say someone's a rapist if there's not been a conviction. That's the same for any other crime reported on Wiki, though. If we write that someone was murdered, we don't always have their killer's name there, do we? We're talking about the victim,. In the case of one well-known singer on Wiki, for instance, she was raped by an unknown assailant coming back to her apartment. She's come out about it and spoken about it publicly. Reporting these facts on Wiki does not implicate anyone else. And there's no reason she shouldn't be believed, any more than we'd question someone's claim of being bullied, being vegetarian or having a specific religion. DanielEng 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to say it but non-famous person gets raped by another non-famous person = no-one knows; non-famous person gets raped by famous person = media frenzy. This cat could become a list of not-famous people who've been raped by famous people, even if the case doesn't get to court or there's no conviction. Perhaps i've got myself tied up in a Zen like confusion - the only accused person isn't convicted so there's no rapist, but does that mean there's no rape victim / rape survivor? And if the rape srvivor goes on a list, how does that reflect on the non-rapist? (BTW: You mention "killed" and "murdered"; are you aware of the very long threads about which word to use?) Dan Beale 01:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see what you're getting at, in a way. If I'm reading this right, I think you're concerned solely about cases where there's been a trial or accusation but no conviction. For instance if we were to list the alleged victim in the Duke attack as a rape victim, it's in a way a negative commentary on the lacrosse players even though they weren't convicted. Perhaps what that means, though, is that in cases where there are identifiable victim and perp, and a trial but no conviction, the situation will have to be examined closely to determine if the category should be used or another cat should be used. For instance I notice in the Virginia Rappe article, there is a full discussion of the situation (a possible but not conclusively proven rape) but none of the catgeories are used.
I don't think every case on Wiki falls into that model, though. What you're forgetting though is the thing I mentioned before, though: sometimes there is no named or suspected attacker, and in that case, there's nothing "reflecting back on the non-rapist" because there is no such entity. DanielEng 02:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - You're right about my main concern. This category doesn't include all rape victims, and will have problems including some rape victims because of BLP problems about the rapist, and possibly BLP problems about the victim (not all victims want to be identified, and I guess that's their right, should Wikipedia soapbox about de stigmatising and 'outing' rape survivors?), and then a woman some countries have odd definitions of rape. Some countries it's still legal for husbands to rape their wives, some countries have 'statutory rape' regarding sex with people under the age of consent, in some countries men cannot be raped (this was the case in the UK until 1997). Can women be rapists? Does rape only include non-consenting penetration of a penis into a vagina or anus? What about force into the mouth, or use of objects?
This isn't "people legally regarded as raped". We already have an adequate definition: Rape. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, the category has some flaws. There's a list of people who've been raped, but a whole bunch of them can't go the list because:
  • They famously accuse one person and there's no conviction (only about 5% of court cases result in conviction in the UK) thus there's BLP stuff about the accused
  • They were raped but do not wish to be identified as a rape victim, thus there's BLP stuff about the survivor. (Obviously some people won't care, or will want to be identified, but we have to recognise that others don't.)
  • They were raped but the law of their land doesn't recognise that assault as rape
  • They consented to sex but the law of their land doesn't recognise that consent
  • Most importantly, verifiability and media coverage means that either the victim or attacker is famous before the rape and the case gets a lot of coverage, and the vast majority of raped people don't get included.
I'm not sure the game is worth the candle - "A partial list of people who happen to have been raped" - the disadvantages are clear, I have no idea what the advantages are. Dan Beale 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of those points could be addressed, though.
"Famously accuse one person and there's no conviction:": As said, this could be examined case by case to avoid BLP issues to the accuser.
"Raped but do not wish to be identified:" I don't think anyone would have a problem about leaving such persons out of the cat. As said before, we're not here to out people, and this would fall under the same protection as any other private information.
I don't think anyone would have a problem - Look at the edit warring that happens over things like conjoined twins, or compsers, or place of birth. If anything this is an argument for the cat; it'd make it easier to fond articles that need careful watching. Dan Beale 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"They were raped but the law does not recognize it as rape", "They consented..." "WHat is the definition of rape": In the case of a bio subject where any of these are issues, they can certainly be explored in detail in the article, as is done in Virginia Rappe. The World Health Organization and other global entities have tried to draw up clear definitions of rape, and one of those could be used in dubious cases. Another option might be to change the name of the category to "sexual assault victims," which would cover the entire spectrum without trying to whittle it down to one definition. In cases where there is no perpetrator named and no court case, and it's the victim's word alone, I don't think this matters. Nobody's going to ask a rape victim, outside of court, "could you tell us just how you were attacked, so we know if you were really raped?" If someone says they were raped, that's good enough.
I'd hate to see an edit warover an article where a women says she was raped but editors quibble over a definition. I guess I should stop BEANSing and let people deal with this stuff if it happens. Dan Beale 11:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"the vast majority of raped people don't get included..." True, but the vast majority of people in general aren't on Wikipedia. The ones in this cat are likely to be either a) notable people who have been raped and have been open about their experiences; b) cases in which there was a conviction and/or assault verified through forensic means and reported through the press. So I don't think this concern is valid.
As I mentioned in my comment to Squeakbox below, from a survivor/advocate view, a list of survivors/victims is important for several reasons, and such lists are used by several victims advocacy groups. DanielEng 16:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment:This is what we should have done from day one, not de populating articles from a category and submitting it for speedy (twice) when clearly it does not qualify for such a process. What is wrong with asking for opinion from the wider community as an admin politely requested in your talk page a month ago? It is so that we can find consensus on these controversial issues. Further what part of WP:Stalk and WP:Troll does this category violate ? Anyway as I said in the ANI, I will abide by community consensus on this issue. I hope you will too. Thanks Taprobanus 19:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it will clearly show you that he is on a crusade. His biggest reason for deleting the category is because it outs the person. What in the world does that mean? If we apply it to a person, who is dead and there is reliable sources stating they were raped, then we are outing nobody. It is only his opinion that it outs anybody. He is not basing that on any facts or scientific evidence. You can not out a person who is dead. His reasons basically amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Fighting for Justice 06:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check the third paragraph of outing if you want to know what it means and dont already. Please dont assume you know my motives, IDONTLIKE has absolutely nothing to do with this. It certainly isnt just my opinion thta outing rape victims is a terrible thing to do, not as bad as raping them but not a lot better and certainly highly invasive. Some people seem to have a death wish for wikipedia but I am not one of them, SqueakBox 02:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Squeakbox, I don't think anyone here has an interest in harming or invading the privacy of rape survivors. I think you're mistaken when you believe that any identification of rape survivors is "outing" or hurting them. Outing can only occur if the information is secret. If the rape is something the subject wishes to keep confidential, of course it shouldn't be revealed. If it's publicly known, it's not outing. Not all rape survivors see their trauma as something to hide in a deep dark closet. I'd draw your attention to the fact that similar lists appear on websites that advocate for victims and clearly want to heal, and not hurt--examples are here. [2], [3] Why a list? Why go public? One reason is because it helps other rape survivors realize there are others who have had similar experiences. DanielEng 03:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would say that even in the case of living people, the notion of the category "outing" anyone is ridiculous. Being a rape survivor isn't shameful. The shame of rape should fall on the perpetrator, not the victim. The current thinking of most rape advocacy groups is to encourage survivors to come forward and share their names and stories, with the idea of showing solidarity, support and making it clear that rape is a real issue that could happen to anyone. Of course, if someone has not wished to be publicly identified (for instance an anonymous victim in a trial whose name is leaked to the media, or a minor), that's one thing, but if a living person has actively come out and told their story to the press, why not include them in the cat? DanielEng 07:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. - Squeakbox if rape is such a taboo subject for you that is fine and dandy for you, however, don't spread that here. And as for that outing subject it does not cover this issue. It would only apply should a person who was raped and wanted to keep it private and a public article about the incident is made. An article on such a person would be wrong. This is not happening, nor will it happen. Fighting for Justice 02:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment How can you assume that ? This cat has existed for a while now and has only been "abuse" couple of time. Other than that there has never been a problem with this cat, specially with adding "unverifiable" subjects. The BPL violation is not a good argument against this cat simply because it has a caution there. Anyone taking a look at the cat will know for sure if a certen claim is legit or not- how can a living person be in a category of the dead????. Watchdogb 22:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - rape is not clearly defined. Rape is defined by different countries in different ways. Which definition of rape will this cat use? Dan Beale 16:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Naturally, it would use the definition of whatever country handled the case. .V. [Talk|Email] 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment What if the subject self-identifies as being raped but the country handling the case doesn't recognise it as rape? For example, in some countries men cannot be raped, and husbands cannot rape their wives. These are good cases to list in this cat (people campaigning for anti-rape awareness), but they demonstrate that there's problems with taking a country's definition of rape. Dan Beale 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's what the disclaimer/warning/message at the top of the cat is for. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment "in many cases, a rape victim has made a sworn statement" - most rapes are not reported to the police, most reported rapes are not taking to prosecution. In many cases the rape victim says nothing, to no-one. Dan Beale 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are irrelevant to the question here. If nobody says anything to anyone, then quite clearly, there can't be reliable sources mentioning the rape, thus there would be no support for including the person in the category, or even mentioning the information on their article. Sorry, but the low report rate of rapes means nothing to the question of this having a category. FrozenPurpleCube 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some people will not report to the police, but there will be media coverage of allegations made by that person in biography. The Ulrika Jonsson case springs to mind - she claimed to have been raped but didn't name the rapist, his identity leaked, there was a media frenzy. Dan Beale 10:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I have no earthly idea how the example you've brought up relates to the objection you've been making. Apparently this person said something to many people. I think it's taken as a given that since she describes herself in her autobiography as being raped, categorizing her as a rape victim would be acceptable. The question of the alleged rapist is another matter, not especially relevant to this category. If you wish to address what to do with a category about rapists, that's a different discussion, and given the length of this one already, it would not be appropriate to get into it here. FrozenPurpleCube 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Say, person X claims s/he was raped, but cannot identify the culprit. Is the claim itself sufficient for inclusion?
Say, person X claims s/he was raped by Y, but Y is (a) never found, (b) never arrested, (c) never prosecuted, (d) never tried, (e) acquitted altogether, (f) acquitted of rape but convicted of some lesser offense (like battery or GBH for our British correspondents) or (g) convicted of rape, but overturned on appeal without retrial or the conviction quashed. Are all those scenarios includable?
Sad to say, but false accusations of rape have been making headlines of late and should WP and WP editors really be exposing themselves to liability for including say, the complaining witness in the Duke case in this category when ultimately it looks like people associated with the accusation are being pursued in the courts. Carlossuarez46 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the caution please. Thanks Watchdogb 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Misplaced reliance. People add categories without reading the caveats, people view the articles with the categories below without the caveats. And as for having one's "rape" reported by reliable sources; isn't that the person's "claim" of rape unless of course the reporter was there when it happened - using the Duke case as instructive material, it would "qualify" showing that even considering the caution, WP:BLP violations are both likely and now, apparently, invited. Carlossuarez46 03:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" As mentioned several times above, nobody voting "keep" has an interest in revealing names of victims of assault who have not made that information public. The people who would be in this category would ostensibly be a) notable individuals who have chosen to make knowledge of their assault public; b) people in court cases where there has been a conviction or forensic evidence and the name is public. And as mentioned before, several sexual assault survivor advocacy groups keep similar lists, as a way of helping other survivors. Examples: [4], [5] Is that "pathetic and disgusting" too? DanielEng 13:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not if you let those organizations manage Wikipedia's list. Or better yet, just create an article with the list. But a cateogry that is arbitrarily decided by consensus and added to biographies is not encyclopedic and problematic. --Tbeatty 17:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice in theory, in practice this cat was not being enforced when I cam across it on Sunday and I wonder how many keep votes will actively enforce it, and even if they do its still a troll magnet with BLP implications, SqueakBox 21:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any category or article on Wiki has the potential to be a troll magnet. I'm active in the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and the articles targeted by trolls are pretty diverse and unexpected. People get a giggle out of vandalizing pencil, for instance.
If there's an issue with unsourced or inappropriate articles being added to the category, the answer would be to better police the cat, not delete it completely. Again, this happens with other articles and other cats, and it doesn't mean the content should be excluded. Deleting the cat isn't going to stop the concern. Any troll with an Internet connection can edit "X was raped" into an article just as easily as they can add the category tag. And without that category tag, it's going to be harder to find the articles where this was done. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. DanielEng 03:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its called enforcing our policies, we cannot allow unsourced allegations or BLP vios merely because this cat is under discussion, and enforcing our policies is good faith and claiming it is bad faith is an unacceptable personal attack for me just doing my job. Cat delete discussions do not exempt us from enforcing our BLP, verification and other policies SqueakBox 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - SqueakBox is again going around removing people from the category. I have no doubt he will be at it again after the next full 24 hrs period. This is insanity needs to stop. He changes nothing in the contents of the article, only the category. He is not acting on the behalf of the families. He operates on this sanctimonious logic nobody appointed him for this. Administrators do something about him! Fighting for Justice 00:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we be outing rape victims on wikipedia? Is this acceptable behaviour. iIts quite clear this cat is unpoliceable because some editors think we should out rape victims in a handy list fopr any troll or convicted sex offender to drool over et al but should wikipedia support that? Appointed FfJ? Can you clarify or are you still persisting in claiming ownership of these articles in spite of being warned that this is not acceptable. Claiming that trying to prevent rape victims beiong outed is certainly a new definition of the word insanity and yetr another personal attack by FfJ in spite of being warned about his personal; attacks against me for trying to enfoce our policies and defend wikipedia. You've asked admins to do somethinfg about me befopre and been warned for your inappropriate behaviour but appear not to have learnt anything. This cat is clearly unenforceable and so should be speedied, SqueakBox 00:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And administrators have asked you not depopulate the rape victim category but that's never stopped you from doing it anyways. You also asked administrators to make me change my user name. And you didn't get your wish. Fighting for Justice 02:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We're not outing anyone, we cite references to reliable sources. Right now, the category is a fucking joke, because some holier-than-thous have decided that only the famous can get raped. It's only unenforceable, because some guy moved the goalposts into the realms of original research, the Paris Hilton line is it? Move them back. - hahnchen 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, wrong again. Having a list of rape victims is indeed outing these poor people who never wanted to be raped in the first place.O we have a duty to be on the side of the victims and not the rapists, but I dont like rapists or rape, SqueakBox 03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nobody here likes rapists or rape. Some of the people voting on this issue may very well be survivors, you know.
The outing concern is not valid here. Any information in a Wiki article has to be sourced properly. We don't have sources for rape accounts unless there's been media coverage, forensic evidence or the person (or their family) has disclosed the incident her/himself. If such a source exists, the rape is not a secret. You can't "out" someone if they've already made the information public.
So what if someone adds someone else inappropriately to the category? A source is requested; if none can be found, or it's a circumstance in which it's obvious that the information was not meant to be disclosed (for example a court case in progress), it's deleted just as any other unsourced or BLP vio information would be. DanielEng 04:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we do not have a duty to be on anyones side, according to WP:NPOV, which you are so fond of citing. And if its already stated in the article that they were raped, how is categorizing them outing them any further? i (said) (did) 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. NPOV doesnt mean being neutral between criminal and victim it meansd taking the commonb view which in this case supports the victim and not the perpetrator. Your claim could be considered a troll bible for supporting criminals et al and that is not what we are about. Our vision is to have a balanced, common sense view of everything not to be indifferent to the pain of victims and the evil of perpetrators. That would be crazy and is not supported bu any poolicy including NPOV, SqueakBox 03:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no it does not. Neutral is neutral. Not favoring who society favors, favoring none. And troll bible?? Do explain. I'm not supporting anyone. The vision is to have a balanced encyclopedia. Not "common sense". Balanced. Not favoring anyone. i (said) (did) 03:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is your opinion but it aint wikipedia policy as it would be unworkable and we arent here to be scientific but to describe the world as it is and has been, ie balanced and with common sense. Outing rape victims isnt being balanced its being vindictive, SqueakBox 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't wikipedia policy?! Have you read the page? It says to represent fairly, without bias. Without bias. Not with common sense. Stop calling it outing please, since it clearly isn't, as the article itself says they've been raped. i (said) (did) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even hear yourself? "But have symapthy towards the victim". That is practically the definition of bias. And there aren't several definitions of bias. And why do you insist to answer my comments about it not being outing? You skirt around it, but dont say why it's outing. i (said) (did) 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really shouldn't keep on using the word "outing" not because of bias, but because it's just flat out misleading about what's happening here. We're not outing Ilayathambi Tharsini, we document from reliable sources (such as Amnesty International in this case),although you obviously feel she should be removed from the category, because she's not famous enough. No purpose other than to "out" rape victims? This is absurd, rape is an academically researched subject, from gender studies to law, having this category to aid that research is definitely makes this useful. - hahnchen 08:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an argumetn to remove all bios from wikipedia, an argument considered sound by a considerable minority but not by me, SqueakBox 03:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No where does wikipedia support the rapist. I'm sure the parents of convicted murderers did not expect their child to grow up to be infamous murderers. Shall we remove the American murderers category in order to be sensitive to the murderer's parents???? You are grasping at straws. Squeaxbox Fighting for Justice 03:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You highlight a good point. The equivalent category for your above examples would be Category:Lits of parents of murderers. We certainly wouldn't have this category because of it's BLP implications. Victims should not be listed. They've already been raped once. No reason to repeat it in the Encyclopedia. --Tbeatty 04:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere except this cat. There is a level of shame around rape that doesnt exist with murders but I dont need to tell you that, SqueakBox 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But there parents are still victims. They did not encourage their child to rape and murder someone. If you care about victims you will care about ALL victims. I see that your sense of caring is selective. Fighting for Justice 03:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on that's not what I meant and you know it. Rape brings shame, its not a good thing but it is real. You cant tell me with a straight face that it isnt if you really care about rape victims. I think any victim of violence (including myself) should be respected as a victim, SqueakBox 04:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brings shame? We're to whitewash things because they bring shame? This is how people are interpreting BLP? How about all the shame from criminality? Category:Criminals by nationality, or do we just care about victim's rights? Shame is an entirely constructed thing, borne out of society and culture, it's not a science, we should not be degrading an encyclopedia, whose audience is the entire population in a vain attempt to respect your patronising views of a victim's wishes. - hahnchen 07:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on nothing. Nobody is getting disrespected here. When are you going to finally see that? If something is already public knowledge then it's not outing. The information is verifiable, and so long as it exist for educational purposes it is valid. No matter what anyone's self-rightgeousness may say. Fighting for Justice 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - May you kindly point out what that new change is, or called? BLP may be violated in any such way. All it needs is some good monitoring, nothing is set in stone. Fighting for Justice
  • Every biography is open to libel, policing that with BLP is fine. Policing possible "privacy concerns" and "shame" isn't. If you do not think the cases noted in Category:Rape victims are notable cases, then AFD them. It is not the category that is at fault. - hahnchen 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reason BLP is a nightmare is because some editors are bending backwards to enforce a totally ambiguous policy, and can pretty much do as they like because as long as they're enforcing the "spirit", that's fine. Unlike kidnapping, rape is a serious part of academic research, and this is a useful subcategory of Category:Rape. That editors have cited "BLP concerns" to try and enforce a "Only celebrities can be raped" rule, shows a total McCarthyist attitude towards enforcing both the spirit and letter of BLP. - hahnchen 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I think I should note that is your opinion. KnightLago 13:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the policy. BLP states that controversial material must be sourced, and the category states that there must be clear sources. .V. [Talk|Email] 13:47, 28 July 2007 (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.

People by former religion

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 debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 13:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: On 16 July Category:Lapsed Roman Catholics and Category:Former Roman Catholics were deleted following this discussion. It was determined there that a person's former religion is not a defining characteristic. Using this as precedent, I propose that Category:People by former religion and all sub-categories are deleted. Hera1187 13:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if Former Roman Catholics is a valid category and can be sourced, it should be used. A person's current or former religion is all notable information. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That it may be a defining characteristic for some members of the category doesn't mean that it is sufficiently defining of everyone who might belong to the category. Otto4711 15:24, 24 July 2007 (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:All India Forward Block

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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All India Forward Block (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect spelling of the party name. Should be renamed to Category:All India Forward Bloc. Soman 12:27, 23 July 2007 (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:Songs referenced by The Pogues

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 debate was delete. After Midnight 0001 14:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs referenced by The Pogues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: "Non-defining or trivial characteristic." as per WP:OCAT - another band's "reference" (however that's defined) is rarely of relevance to the article subject, and certainly isn't in these cases. McGeddon 11:04, 23 July 2007 (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:Judeo-Christian prophets

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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Judeo-Christian prophets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category causes confusion and merges what should be kept as two distinct subjects relating to two different religions. "Judeo-Christian prophets" also has the ring of a neoligism and hence probably violates WP:NEO. It is also structured incorrectly, and has taken it upon itself to perform a de facto "upmerge" of Jewish Biblical prophets (the Christian ones would follow soon enough presumably.) There is already Category:Prophets in Judaism and Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible which have done the job quite well thus far, and there is Category:Prophets in Christianity. They are all part of the parent category Category:Prophets. It is useless and dangerous to now link up all the prophets of the world into larger categories like "Judeo-Christian prophets" that seek to blur the lines between two conflicting religions and clear, agreed-upon, long-established, categories. IZAK 08:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews consider Abigail, Amoz, Balaam, Baruch ben Neriah, Beor (Bible), Bildad, Bithiah, Eli (Bible), Elihu (Job), Eliphaz (Job), Elkanah (husband of Hannah), Esther, Hannah (Bible), Job (Bible), Mehseiah, Mordecai, Neriah, Sarah, Seraiah ben Neriah, Zophar though Christians do not accept these people as prophets. Though there is a major overlap thus i made the Judeo-Christian prophets category and made it a subcategory of Prophets in Christianity and Prophets in Judaism and simply put the overlap in Judeo-Christian prophets--Java7837 12:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) (tidied & punctuated Johnbod 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Do you have clear authority for this? Is there a clear procedure for recognising someone as a prophet in either Christianity or Judaism? PatGallacher 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


For Judaism it's the Talmud--Java7837 18:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Delete the category I wasn't thinking--Java7837 18:48, 26 July 2007 (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:Partisan Newspapers

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 debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Partisan Newspapers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Most newspapers support a particular line or tendency, surely? What constitutes partisanship? Is it endorsing particular candidates or parties at elections? This category is too subjective and surely a target for mischief making. Man vyi 07:44, 23 July 2007 (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.

Neighbourhoods in Canada

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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 13:57, 30 July 2007 (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:Piano sonatas by Frédéric Chopin

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 debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piano sonatas by Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small with almost no potential; if Chopin had written 32 sonatas like Beethoven this would be understandable but since there are only three it seems almost useless to have it. —  $PЯIПGrαgђ  04:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a very odd comment from someone who puts so much time into far more minutely categorised areas of popular culture. I would very strongly oppose deleting the Beethoven & other categories. If you are a pianist you do not want to have to search for piano compositions among great numbers of orchestral or choral ones. We rightly have wider schemes for symphonies, operas, Lieder and other types of composition. There are infinitely fewer categories in classical music than in popular music or film, but the few that there are still encounter this sort of attitude. Johnbod 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That other categorization schemes exist doesn't justify this categorization scheme. Since it appears that each of the articles categorized under the Piano sonatas subcats are named either "Piano sonata #" or "Sonata #" it seems unlikely that anyone searching for Piano sonatas is going to have any difficulty in finding them as they would all be grouped in numerical order under either "P" or "S". Not sure what my involvement in other categorization schemes has to do with anything. Otto4711 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But we already have about 5 "Piano Sonata No 1"s by different composers, & could easily have 20 in the future, and many composers wrote over 20. I can't think of a clearer case for subcategorisation. The PS category would already look ridiculous if all the sub-cats were upmerged, even before people start using the titles, rather than the numbers, of the Moonlight Sonata, Pathetique Sonata etc. The relevance of your involvement with other category schemes is that you seem to apply very different standards on areas where you work yourself. Johnbod 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the sonata articles specify the composer, for instance, Piano Sonata No. 1 (Chopin). Since this nomination isn't about me but rather the category, I'm still not seeing the relevance of my other opinions. Maybe you should stick to arguing the merits instead of trying to make this personal. Otto4711 17:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do, but imagine an undivided category with 100 or more articles, some with composer name default sorts, some sorting on Sonata, others sorting on Piano. Hardly easy naigation. Johnbod 18:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you say so Otto! Johnbod 19:37, 23 July 2007 (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:Deceased Harry Potter characters

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 debate was speedily deleted. Due to the unanimity of this discussion and the timeliness of the spoilers, I decided to break protocol so that many people reading the book right now wouldn't be inconvenienced. (And no, I didn't read it.)--Mike Selinker 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deceased Harry Potter characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, per many previous discussions. -- Prove It (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2007 (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:English people by ethnic or national descent

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 debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English people by ethnic or national descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Merge into Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, since these are English people with non-English ancestry. -- Prove It (talk) 00:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Speedy close - read the other open discussion on these categories please here, not to mention the category descriptions. (Since the other discussion has closed, we might as well continue this one). However someone seems to have been mixing up the two trees, which will need some sorting. Some or all parts of these have already been combined - what is needed is a demerge, not a merge. The reversions by the nominator seem to be part of the problem. But we should not have two discussions open on the same issue.Johnbod 04:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 :reject this nomination. Trying to prove a point, the point being no understanding of the difference between immigrants and emigrants. Hmains 02:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Hmains 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The point is, in fact, that Category:English people by ethnic or national descent is nearly identical in content to Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, and fits neither the pattern found in Category:People by ethnic or national origin or that of Category:People by ethnic or national descent. --Eliyak T·C 19:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
merge Sorry about above. I did not check this carefully enough; I was actually working on this merge! Category:English people by ethnic or national descent is incorrectly named per all the other categories for this purpose. Given the contents, it should be merged into Category:English people by ethnic or national origin, which is properly named (like all its sister categories), per the nomination. Hmains 03:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general I agree, although these two do in fact have special issues, because of some edits muddying the usual scheme. Johnbod 22:53, 24 July 2007 (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.
More