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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As per usual, categories should match their main article, i.e. Paris Saint-Germain F.C. – PeeJay 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 21:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all to match parent article. --Jimbo[online] 16:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom. GiantSnowman 08:31, 30 September 2009 (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:Arab statesmen
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.
Cmt. Hm, statesman is an head of state and an senior politician, a politician can also be a mayor or someone without a political office at all, imho this are two different things. So why don't subcat the cat:statesman to the then parent cat:Arab politicians? Sebastian scha. (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
"Statesman" is not a neutral term, it's a term of respect. It's not possible to divide objectively people into "politicians" and "statesmen", so it's against our NPOV policy. bogdan (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry I doesn't thought about NPOV. Sebastian scha. (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Arab politicians & I think heads of state if necessary. Are monarchs politicians? Probably these should not be merged there. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all parts of the nomination. Debresser (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arab heads of state (almost all of the articles in that this category are about heads of state). Alefbe (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2009 (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:Home Improvement
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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - smalleponymous category for a TV series whose possibility of expansion is nil If kept should be renamed to Category:Home Improvement (TV series) to match the main article and stop the accidental inclusion of articles like Perforated hardboard which was in there yesterday. Otto4711 (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hope of population beyond what's in there already. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Home Improvement (TV series) to match title of parent article, per nom. There is already an article for one episode and nil evidence that the "possibility of expansion is nil". Miscategorization might be a legitimate argument for renaming, but even there the possibility appears to be nil. To answer the inevitable question, if the possibility of an article being miscategorized is non-nil based on the event actually happening, the addition of an article for further episodes is also non-nil, again based on past evidence. Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop looking at your crystal ball. How do we know that there will be potential to expand this category? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis have you decided that there is "No hope of population beyond what's in there already"? While unlike you I have no "crystal ball", it is clear, as Otto suggests below, that there could be additional articles created for episodes, as has already been done. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otto did not suggest below that additional articles could be created for individual episodes. Otto stated quite clearly his skepticism that any episodes of this series, including the one for which an utterly unreferenced article currently exists, are individually notable. Otto would appreciate it if you would break your terrible habit of prevaricating and deliberately mischaracterizing his remarks in service to your agenda. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that any of the individual television episodes is notable (which does not appear to be the case) then they would properly be housed in Category:Home Improvement (TV series) episodes, not this category. Even if every individual episode were notable and had its own article, the existence of the episodes category does not in any way mandate or warrant an eponymous category for the series. Otto4711 (talk) 04:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]he existence of the episodes category does not in any way mandate or warrant an eponymous category for the series", nor does it mandate its deletion. "[F]or a TV series whose possibility of expansion is nil", there seems to be ample possibilities of expansion, limited only by ones imagination or willingness to have categories serve as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one appears to be suggesting that deletion is mandated. You appear to be making that up. Otto4711 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename it can't stay where it is, it's a hopelessly confusing name. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or rename if kept. The navbox Template:Home Improvement provides all necessary navigation links and more, and the lead article is in the same head categories for ABC and Buena Vista. - Fayenatic(talk) 12:06, 28 September 2009 (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:First Mayors of Hamburg
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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The title First Mayor of Hamburg was only established in 1860, there are also mayors in the 13th century (only two of them having articles now) and there are several Second Mayors. To populate this category it should be renamed. Sebastian scha. (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not simply create Mayors of Hamburg as a parent and then cleanup? -choster (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I want a populated category, not two with a few articles. But if this is the reasonable solution, I will do it. Sebastian scha. (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. And yes, I have read the above comment. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2009 (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:Spin City
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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough for a full category. Only one main article, two subarticles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small eponymous category whose meagre contents are appropriately linked and whose expansion is unlikely. Otto4711 (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2009 (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:Anti-gay propaganda
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.
propagandanoun1 a the organized circulation by a political group, etc of doctrine, information, misinformation, rumour or opinion, intended to influence public feeling, raise public awareness, bring about reform, etc; b the material circulated in this way.
With a definition established, the key issue of dispute is apparent. As a term, 'propaganda' has two distinct sides to its definition; the relatively neutral (doctrine or information) and the decidedly not neutral (misinformation or rumour). This is at the heart of the delete view - labelling views as 'misinformation' or 'rumour' through categorisation would be a violation WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Even if the application of this category was only intended in the sense of 'information' or 'doctrine', can this term ever escape its loaded connotations?
The keep argument seems to centre largely around the merits of proper sourcing. Provided WP:RS can be satisfied then there is no reason that the category cannot be applied. This is proof against any concerns of NPOV - if a source which is reputable has called something propaganda, then the question of a POV or not does not arise - the source is reputable and its opinion respectable. This works for articles, why not for categories as well? Two clear strands of thought in collision - which is to be preferred?
To come to a proper conclusion, we have to consider the essential nature of categories. According to WP:CAT, categories ought to "...be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects". In other words, from the very outset, there is an implication that an article's categorisations are objective and factual, free from controversy or doubt. As WP:CAT goes on to say, "Categories appear without annotations or referencing, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is likely to be more appropriate".
The question is, while WP:RS is applicable to the question of whether an article ought to be added to a category, how does it impact on the creation/retention of categories of controversial name or scope? After considering the arguments I am persuaded that it does not. The fact that the term 'propaganda' can have loaded overtones is established and I am satisfied that this creates the possibility of violations of NPOV, OR, and (if applied to individuals) BLP. Furthermore, the category lacks any objective criteria, either implicit or explicit, for population - categories which rely solely on an appeal to WP:RS are not in keeping with the letter or the spirit of WP:CAT. I am satisfied that policy beats guideline, that as a result this category should be Deleted, as indeed should all similar categories in Category:Propaganda by interest.
Nominator's rationale: The category inherently violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR, as it would be very difficult to classify the topic of an article as propaganda without violating these policies. TechBear (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reasons as explained above.--Karljoos (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTCENSORED applies. Articles such as Homophobic propaganda and Save Ulster from Sodomy are very easy to classify without violating NPOV or OR. A suitable compromise was suggested and under discussion on the category talk page before this nomination was raised. If the issue is the word "propaganda" then alternative names and definitions should be discussed in the ongoing discussion on the category talk page before nominating for deletion.—Ash (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion of nomination - WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply, as no one is trying to censor anything. The matter at hand is not whether the category is objectionable, but whether it is appropriate. Can such a category be applied without violating the neutral point of view or original research policies? If the article refers to its topic as anti-gay propaganda and provides sufficiently reliable sources, then yes. If the article does not provide this internal support, then the categorization is POV and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy. I would like to add that I am not against the anti-gay propaganda category specifically; I am against any broadly applied propaganda category, for the reasons I have given. This is simply the first one to come within the view of my watchlist. TechBear (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - My main objection to this and other propaganda categories is the use of the word "propaganda." It is a loaded word with a great deal of negative connotations; outside of a very narrow useage, it conveys a negative attitude and so is inherently POV. TechBear (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) The heading for this !vote was changed after my comment above and so is no longer in context, see diff.—Ash (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pages like this exist for discussion and developing consensus, not to hold an election. I am not allowed to explain my nomination, or expand upon the very brief summary of my nomination? And you dare accuse me of censorship? TechBear (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you point out where I dare to accuse you of censorship, I'll be happy to strike it out. If you mean my reference to WP:NOTCENSORED above, this was to highlight the guidance therein. In particular "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive". That text seems quite relevant here, hence my use of the word "applies".—Ash (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I dare say that most of the propaganda categories could be deleted, as they inherently reflect a non-neutral point of view. TechBear (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources calling something gay propaganda, then maybe the catagory would be fine. I doubt Brokeback would qualify, though.Quietmarc (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you look at Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it is within a category "Antisemitic writing". Perhaps a better category would be "Antisemitic propaganda"? There's a host of sub-categories under the category "Antisemitism". I cannot think of any better category for a HomophobicConspiracy theory, and even if we were to create one called "Anti-homosexuality", that would then have to have sub-categories like "Homophobia", "Anti-gay propaganda", "Anti-gay conspiracy theories", etc. We have articles under "Anti-Christianity" as a category, with loads of sub-categories that fine detail Anti-Christianity - why would this be different?. Re: the "Gay propoganda" suggestion, following this logic, we could have "Jewish world conspiracy" or "Jewish propaganda" and "Christian propaganda" or "Christian proselytising" categories to be applied to all articles about Judaism and Christianity - which would fail NPOV, and "Gay propaganda" fails NPOV as it assumes that anything about homosexuality is propaganda, which would be WP:OR. Mish (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mish - You have made an argument for renaming the category. Possibly "Category:LGBT Opposition"?--Knulclunk (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So long as there are sources that call something "propaganda" (and I'm sure there are), it isn't original research, and I see no problem with calling something what it is. Yeah, propaganda is a word laden with meaning, but if the sources feel comfortable using it, then there's no reason why wikipedia should avoid it.Quietmarc (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources feel comfortable with all sorts of things. If Fox News, Christianity Today and the Standard all call something "propaganda", does it count? How about the Advocate, Daily Kos, and The Progressive? --Knulclunk (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a potential source bias issue that would need discussion. That's why WP:RS/N exists and is so well used.—Ash (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are recommending pitched WP:RS/N source battles for each of these entries? Let's experiment now. Find three reliable, unbiased sources that call "gay agenda" propaganda. Editorials and blogs don't count, of course.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a bit off-topic, which was rather my original point that this nomination pre-empted completing discussion on the category talk page. However I suggest you examine this Google News search as plenty of well known newspapers have used the word "propaganda" to describe how "gay agenda" was used by organizations. If you don't like news then try this Google Scholar search, more than 3 example sources there too. Your example actually seems to make a good point for keep.—Ash (talk) 11:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic? It has been suggested that reliable sources claiming "propaganda" is reason for keeping this category. Please give some examples of these mainstream sources.--Knulclunk (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right, you actually want me to cut & paste a list of sources here based on the explicit searches for reliable sources on Google Books and Google Scholar I just gave above. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant, but that seems a bit pointless when you can just click on the link and see for yourself that these sources exist. Okay I'll assume good faith here. Here are 3 published reliable sources that explicitly call the "Gay Agenda" "Propaganda":
Source 2- [2] This is referring to a specific video entitled "The Gay Agenda", or quoting from the Washington Blade. This source is no good, you should remove it.
Source 3- [3] This is also refers to the the video, "The Gay Agenda".
So these three sources, labeling the term "gay agenda" as "propaganda" are either biased or misused. Not reliable.--Knulclunk (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you copy the same text here and Talk:Homosexual agenda, are you forcing me to reply in two places? As explained on the article talk page, your argument is ridiculously spurious as the video is the origin of the term. Please take a look at WP:LETGO and WP:GAME as you appear to be arguing just to prove there might be an argument. There really isn't one and your self-defined experiment demonstrates a clear rationale for Keep.—Ash (talk) 11:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not citing a source on a topic covered under LGBT studies because it is attributable to an expert in LGBT studies is pretty bizarre. Mish (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ash - you split the discussion, not I. Mish - Just because an "expert in LGBT studies" calls something "propaganda" does not mean Wikipedia should.--Knulclunk (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the "something" was "Gay agenda", guidance from academic experts in gay issues as to what terms to use to describe "Gay agenda" would seem absolutely perfect to meet Wikipedia guidelines for how to describe "something". It seems evident that you are arguing for the sake of it so you can claim that this issue is more controversial than it is in practice. The sources meet all the requirements of WP:RS. You have said that you "have no problem with the sources". I cannot believe that you are seriously calling the conclusions of peer reviewed academic publications an invalid basis for an encyclopedic entry or the basis for classification of articles. Unless you are prepared to provide equally valid peer reviewed high quality academic sources claiming an opposing view then your argument is spurious and needlessly argumentative. There is no voice but yours making such outlandish claims.—Ash (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@ Knulclunk. This is not the place to debate this. It was asserted that there were no WP:RS that referred to Anti-gay propaganda, three were provided, you can't accept this. That doesn't mean they aren't WP:RS or invalid, it means you can't accept them, that's all. End of discussion. Mish (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the basis for Knulclunk's argument. Let us suppose that Fox News is a reliable source. Fox News describes a breaking story as "liberal propaganda." Is it therefore appropriate to put any article related to the story into a category of "liberal propaganda," based on that reliable source? My concern, and the reason I proposed deletion for this category, is that there is no objective metric for determining what is and is not propaganda. With a word as loaded as this one, I do not think we can rely on just WP:RS. TechBear (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propaganda is not loaded, it describes a phenomenon that is clearly defined. This seems an unusual precedent, that if somebody uses a term that some people have a problem with in certain contexts, then it shouldn't be allowed as a category, even if there are reliable sources establishing this usage, and the same word is acceptable as a category in other articles where it is used in the same way. How would such a rule be worded, out of interest, so that this can be arbitrarily applied universally? Mish (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) "Propaganda is not loaded, it describes a phenomenon that is clearly defined." I will ask again: by what metric? What is the standard by which something is classed as propaganda as distinct from not-propaganda? More to the point, when would an article be put into the cagegory of anti-gay propaganda and when would it not be put into that category? Fox News has described healthcare reform as "socialist propaganda;" can the article Healthcare reform therefore be put into Category:Socialist Propaganda? All I am asking for is a reasonably clear demarcation. TechBear (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understood that Fox News was right-wing propaganda itself, is this not correct? Mish (talk) 10:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(metric) The category has a definition that was starting to be refined before being put up for deletion. The normal WP polices apply (such as Wikipedia:Categorization). If the article has good sources that place it in this category no "metric" is needed and there is no need to make up new rules. To judge if a source is suitably reliable WP:RS applies. If the sources are contradictory then a decision would be reached by consensus. Taking the example of Gay agenda (yet again) there are no contradictory reliable sources, the existing sources call it anti-gay propaganda so unless someone can produce a contradictory good source there is no need for a lengthy debate as the categorization is not controversial.—Ash (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per expressed OR and POV concerns along with the WP:BLP concerns of labeling someone homophobic. Anita Bryant is an ideal example of the problems inherent in this category. For every source that calls her "homophobic" or a "propagandist" there's another that calls her "compassionate to the homosexual" or "speaking the truth of God's word" or whatever. Bryant certainly doesn't consider herself to be a homophobe; she saw herself expressing love for gay individuals while decrying what she saw as detrimental life choices. By categorizing her and others like her in this fashion, we're substituting our opinions for theirs, something as a neutral encyclopedia we may not do. Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bryant isn't propaganda, so she doesn't belong in the category either way. She may be a propagandist, but that would be a different category. Postdlf (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which begs the question: By what objective metric do editors determine whether or not a topic is propaganda? "I know it when I see it" is unacceptably POV. TechBear (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Six of the current 13 articles in the category are for organizations rather than documents or publications or what-have-you so if Bryant shouldn't be there then neither should her organization. Which also raises the question of whether the category can be adequately populated even if the POV and OR concerns can be addressed. BTW, Bryant is still in Category:Homophobia along with a lot of other living people and should be removed. Otto4711 (talk) 21:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR and POV concerns addressed above. I recently worked on trying to clean up the contents of Category:Propaganda. I tried to focus on subcategorizing the contents by medium. Once we get into subcategorizing "by interest", things get too squishy and controversial. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - LGBT Opposition does not adequately cover conspiracy theories and homophobic propaganda. Being opposed to LGBT rights is different from smear campaigns against gay and lesbian people. Mish (talk) 23:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But LGBT Opposition does not equate to homophobic propaganda, which is exactly where this category is leading.--Knulclunk (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, which is why there needs to be a category for anti-gay propaganda, not all LGBT opposition is homophobic, not all relies on propaganda, and it is important to ensure they are categorised distinctly. Mish (talk) 12:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The category inherently violates WP:NPOV, at least under this name. Carlaude:Talk 04:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight. Articles about Anti-gay propaganda (such as Homosexual agenda) are NPOV, but a category for such articles called "Anti-gay propaganda" is not NPOV. Interesting. That seems to be a POV in its own right. Mish (talk) 22:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly stated that the articles were NPOV? Believing that is not a conditional precedent for believing the categories are POV (nor is believing that the articles are POV, incidentally). Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a rather weird non-argument, was it a clarification? If the articles are not tagged or under discussion as failing WP:NPOV then an editor should assume they meet the guidance or tag as appropriate. If it were a valid argument that every article might fail some important WP guidance then no category would ever be valid.—Ash (talk) 12:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just questioning your bringing the issue of articles into this at all. To argue that a category is POV says nothing about the articles. They are two separate issues, and you can't say "the articles are NPOV—therefore the category is too". Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorizing recent works as "anti-gay propaganda" is inherently POV. Having a category, in which topics appear without citation or attribution is not equivalent to having an article called "anti-gay propaganda" in which the topic is discussed in detail with appropriate sourcing. And if a work has been described as "anti-gay propaganda" in reliable sources, then it's totally appropriate for the article on that work to make note of that characterization and discuss it. But as long as that characterization is disputed in reliable sources, then we shouldn't put the article in this category. The difference between this category and Category:Antisemitic propaganda--which should not be deleted--is that all (or all of the ones I checked) of the works included in the latter are fairly old (Nazi era or earlier) and no one seriously disputes that they are in fact anti-Jewish propaganda. The present category, with the exception of Boys Beware, is all current or very recent works/events, about which there is no such consensus. So unless the category is only going to be populated with historical examples that no one seriously disputes in WP:RSs, it should be deleted. YilloslimeTC 21:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Family Research Council released the "The Gay Agenda" video series in 1992. That makes it 16 years old. The 3 sources that use the term "propaganda" in reference to the "The Gay Agenda" were published 10 years ago or more. Describing these as "current" or "recent works" is a bit of an exaggeration.—Ash (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relative to the anti-Jewish works in Category:Antisemitic propaganda they are certainly more current. But it'd prefer to refrain from linguistic hairsplitting--is the basic gist of my argument unclear or the argument itself somehow flawed? YilloslimeTC 22:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about renaming the category 'anti-gay disinformation', if people don't like propaganda? Mish (talk) 22:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the hair-splitting that over 15 years ago is not the same thing as "current", your argument may be flawed when you state that "as long as that characterization is disputed in reliable sources". With regard to the example of "gay agenda" there are sources characterizing this quite clearly as propaganda but there is none to dispute the fact that the "gay agenda" was used as anti-gay propaganda.—Ash (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep We have Nazi propaganda, so I see no problem with a category having the word "propaganda". Debresser (talk) 18:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that Nazi propaganda was produced at a specific time from a unique source, Germany 1930-1945. Those articles are seen through the lens of history. Those articles are all "PRO-NAZI", much easier for the "I know it when I see it" test. But, if the "nazi propaganda" label was being used as a pejorative and slapped on anything with conservative views, then we would have to consider deleting that category too.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(consensus) As the category anti-gay propaganda was only created last week, there has not been enough time to see if it is "being used as a pejorative". This is a hasty CFD raised in knee jerk reaction (1 day after being created) before a consensus view could be reached on the category talk page on how to define the category applicability or even to discuss potential renaming. To argue that you think that the category anti-gay propagandamight be more controversial than Nazi propagandabefore giving time for consensus is not a rationale for deletion.—Ash (talk) 06:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article Homintern discusses this phenomemonen between 1940 and 1960. I'd agree that the issue is not the category but the application of the category. This article passes the 'history' test. Mish (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2009 (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:Big Ten champion seasons
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. There is no real consensus to endorse the new names, but there also isn't any enthusiasm for reversing the out-of-process moves. We'll just delete the nominated categories as empty, but this discussion shouldn't be read as endorsing what was done or the current names that were selected out-of-process, and the newly-named categories may be nominated for renaming at any time.Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a procedural nomination; the category was emptied out of process by User:Jweiss11, who moved most if not all the articles from here to Category:Big Ten Conference football champion seasons (see contributions). Except for the process issue, I have no problem with this, as the new title seems more descriptive, although Big Ten Conference football championship seasons would be preferable grammatically. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – looking at Category:Big Ten Conference football champion seasons, this seems a very complicated way of stating that 'in 2005 there was a tie between Ohio and Penn State' and '2003 was a bit of a mystery'. A list would surely be much better. (Or renaming and repurposing to Category:Big Ten Conference football championship seasons.) Also Rose Bowl could do with 'football' being added; see eg Rose Bowl (disambiguation). Occuli (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Re: Occuli's comments, I don't think the point of Category:Big Ten Conference football champion seasons is to list the Big Ten champs as much as it is to organize the articles. There is in fact a list here: Big Ten Conference football champions. 2003 is no longer a "mystery" if you will, as I created a page for 2003 Michigan Wolverines football team as well as ones for all other Michigan teams going back to 1995, so far. I agree with R'n'B's point about "championship seasons" being more apt than "champion seasons", but the same logic would apply to a whole slew of other conference and bowl champion categories. I've categorized up those groups of categories here:
Seems that "champion" is already the practice in use. If we change to "championship", we need to change all of these in like fashion. Re: Occuli's last comment, I'm not sure the Rose Bowl champs really needs "football" added. The women's cricket can take the specification. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:36, 26 September 2009 (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:Flying Saucer Masters
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:deleted per G8. Empty category whose parent article does not exist, and thus serving no use right now (dependent on a deleted page). JamieS93 17:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After deletion of the main article, many pages that were created by the same editor and removing the category from misleading redirect pages, the category is empty and should stay that way. Ash (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G8 Dependent on nonexistant parent/empty anyway. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (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:Fictional prisoners
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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - discussed previously here with a result of "keep but prune" which clearly did not and probably will never happen, and here with a close of "no consensus". The category remains far too broad in scope to the point of uselessness. It is capturing any character who spent any time in detention, regardless of how brief or how important it was to the storyline. It is capturing a trope in fiction so commonplace that a majority of fictional character articles would likely fit into it. Almost every soap opera character ends up in jail at some point. Most of the lawyers from The Practice were held in contempt and put in a jail cell at some point. It's just meaningless. Companion categories for fictional fugitives and fictional escapees have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 10:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categories are not about things that are true about a character; They are about defining characteristics. There are many characters who have been in prison at some point in their story line, but unless their incarceration is a defining characteristic of the character, they don't belong here. That's how the category system works. Alansohn (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the question to ask is not "are there a character or characters for whom this may be a defining characteristic" but rather "is this characteristic defining of its potential population as a whole?" Clearly there are some characters for whom having been a prisoner is defining, but when applied to the entire set of fictional characters who have at some point in their fictional lives been held prisoner for some greater or lesser period of time it's obvious that for the vast majority of them this doesn't come close to being a defining characteristic. For every Number Six there are dozens of Bradford Meades whose imprisonment lasted IIRC two or three episodes, if that, and dozens of Jerry Seinfelds, Cosmo Kramers, George Costanzas and Elaine Beneses who I assume are included because the four were sent to jail in the last episode of the series (a fact, BTW, not mentioned in any of the articles except Jerry's and a status which lasted within the series finale for all of two scenes lasting minutes). Taken as a whole the characteristic is clearly not defining of the vast majority of such characters. Otto4711 (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have this backwards. The question here of "are there a character or characters for whom this may be a defining characteristic" is both the relevant question one which is indeed true, as you appear to acknowledge, though you justify deletion based on the number of entries you believe to be miscategorized. I agree with you that the "Seinfeld Four" are not defined by being prisoners, and I can assume that you will use your usual and customary aggressiveness in cleaning up this category, as you have done in so many others on your own initiative. Any other questionable entries where you are uncertain of the definingness of their prisonerhood should be discussed on the talk page of the articles in question. "Failure to prune" represents an issue that has no relevance in justifying deletion under any guideline or policy. Alansohn (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um no, I didn't say that if the category exists that any of the examples I offered don't belong in it because they were at some point in their character's history prisoners. What I am saying is that in examining the vast entirety of fictional characters who have at some point in their fictional existence been prisoners (whether in a correctional facility, mental hospital, evil mastermind's lair, or wherever, which presents another problem with the category, one of lack of specificity) for the overwhelming majority of them this is not a defining characteristic. The question of whether a characteristic is defining relates to the characteristic in general, not whether we can think of one or two exceptions and pretend that they are the rule. Otto4711 (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Basketball players, even though the vast majority of people who have played basketball are neither notable nor is it a defining characteristic of their lives, even for those who have Wikipedia articles. We also have Category:Fictional basketball players, and we have no trouble distinguishing between those that are deined as basketball players and the vast majority that played basketball at some point in their fictional careers. This category is indeed defining for many individuals and serves as an aid for navigation across these articles. When an author creates a character and places them in jail, the decision is not an arbitrary one and there is a vast difference between a Number Six and Kosmo Kramer that few editors would have difficulty distinguishing which article belongs here and which does not. There is no valid policy / guideline-based argument that requires that all potential members of a category must be defined by that characteristic. Even without a definition of "defining" at WP:DEFINING to guide us on the issue, your approach appears to be outside of consensus on what the term actually means based on actual usage and would set a precedent that would sadly result in the deletion of a huge swath of categories where this same argument could be proffered. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First some general observations and responses to your comments, then on to the merits of this CFD... Not everything that isn't yet forbidden by policy or guidelines is a good idea. Simply saying what you want to do is not forbidden is beside the point of whether it is a good thing to do. But I think what Otto4711 is describing is general practice and a common concern raised in CFDs. If a characteristic does not tend to be defining for the group of individuals that possesses it, then what's the benefit of categorizing it? You would then scatter the few people (or fictional characters) for whom it is significant with the bulk of those for whom it is not, and burden many articles with tags for categories that are trivial for those subjects.
Your analogy to the Category:Basketball players category is at least in part not a proper one, because you start by confusing two separate issues. The first issue is that a category's existence is never to be construed as an invitation to create articles for all possible members (such as all people born in 1911). No one has suggested to the contrary.
It is an entirely separate issue of whether a category should contain all existing articles that belong in it, regardless of whether the category is significant for that individual. Over time, categories do tend to expand to cover all entries that literally fit in them. This is why we should 1) try to limit categories to those that are categorically significant, i.e., significant for most if not all of their members and in the same way, and 2) try to name categories as precisely as possible so that only the intended population is captured rather than trivial outliers.
In that sense, many occupation categories that have hobbyist analogs may pose a similar problem to this one, and in that sense Category:Basketball players is a good analogy, because it clearly should not include article subjects who play a pickup game on weekends, even though they might literally be basketball players. Similarly, Category:Fictional prisoners should not include characters who were thrown in jail for one episode as a quick plot twist, but who otherwise were not prisoners throughout the course of their narratives.
So then the question is what the solution is here. No one seems to disagree that Category:Fictional prisoners, over time, acquires articles that should not be put into it. So what should be done about it? Perhaps these maintenance issues are manageable, in part because those articles that don't even mention the categorized trait can just have the category summarily removed. That seems to be Alansohn's and Debresser's conclusions. Or perhaps it could be renamed to more appropriately target its intended scope. Otto4711's conclusion is that the category is so unworkable and not worth salvaging that it should just be deleted. I'm not persuaded by that yet. At this point, I would like to see some actual discussion as to how best this can be pruned (or renamed) and maintained over time, rather than just the unelaborated insistence that it can be. Postdlf (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune, as before. Relisting at wp:cfd is no a punishment for not pruning. Debresser (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and prune, per AlanSohn and Debresser.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2009 (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:Prisoners at Lewisburg Federal Penitentiary
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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Similar to this nomination. With perhaps a few exceptions (e.g., Alcatraz), being an inmate at any particular U.S. penitentiary is not defining. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Agree with Good Olfactory--Karljoos (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2009 (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:Distillery F.C. players
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:Close - the category is already under discussion further down the page and there should not be two concurrent discussions of the same category. Suggestions to merge can be made at the first discussion. Non-admin close. Otto4711 (talk) 10:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two clubs are one and the same. All that happened was that the name changed in 1999. It is misleading to distinguish between players of the same club just because of a name change. After the merger, it may be appropriate to change the title of the category to, say, "(Lisburn) Distillery F.C. players". Mooretwin (talk) 09:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All articles in Category:Distillery F.C. players should be moved to Category:Lisburn Distillery F.C. players, and the former category should be deleted, or left as a redirect. – PeeJay 10:44, 23 September 2009 (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:Technical University of Madrid
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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The official name of the university is Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Polytechnic University of Madrid), the name of the article is Polytechnic University of Madrid and having the category under a different name would be misleading. Karljoos (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2009 (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:Reboot films
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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A very speculative and loose term. Many movies aren't known as reboots, some are just sequels and prequels. Overcategorization at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike the situation with television shows, many of the articles about these movies do describe them as "reboots", and the term is used with some frequency by secondary sources when discussing movie franchises. (I do note, however, that a couple of the articles currently in the category may not belong.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is used in reliable and verifiable sources to describe the phenomenon and this is an appropriate means of grouping such films by this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or Delete, this will likely be confused with the TV movies for the Reboot TV cartoon. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — CIS(talk | stalk) 07:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reboots have become a legit genre in cinema of this decade. There are so many of them, an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia has to have a category for the genre. -- Evans1982 (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2009 (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:Phineas Taylor Barnum
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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article P. T. Barnum. I don't think there's much doubt that he is best known by the initialized name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking over the article, it seems that the initials P. T. was only used in the name of the traveling circus that Barnum established, not the name he's credited to. Looking at the history of Phineas Taylor Barnum, it seems that P. T. Barnum was the chosen title merely on the fact that it had a larger history at the time. I think it would be worth discussing the appropriate title of the article. — ξxplicit 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that debate should happen at the article if it's going to happen, but have you ever seen Barnum referred to by his full name? I haven't—I might not even realise who it being referred to if "Phineas Taylor Barnum" is used. Maybe I just read too many circus books. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't heard of Barnum before today, so I can't really answer that question. I Googled both search terms and it seems that P. T. is in fact the more common name (44,600 vs. 872,000). I really have no opinion on it, just thought I'd bring it up. — ξxplicit 05:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with a couple of exceptions the category contains articles about acts who worked for or were exhibited by Barnum. Thus the category is a variety of performer by performance overcategorization, similar to categories for Actresses who appeared in Hammer films, actors who worked on David E. Kelley productions and I seem to recall one for actresses in Russ Meyer films. These are presumably linked through the individual articles and through Barnum's articles and a navtemplate would further that linkage. Otto4711 (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've created ((Template:Barnum)) if anyone's interested. Otto4711 (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be the better approach. It's certainly the one that's usually favoured over eponymous categories when there are no subcategories. For clarity, I would support deletion, with the original nomination rationale still applied if the category is not deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:17, 24 September 2009 (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:Distillery F.C. players
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - re-creation of previously deleted (via merger) category Speedy deletion declined for some unfathomable reason so let's spend a week yammering about it. No indication that anything's changed since the last CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – deletion was declined because 'delete' and 'merge' have very different effects. I personally think the present set-up (in Category:Lisburn Distillery F.C. players) is fine; we have a similar way (at times) of categorising alumni of institutions which have changed names (per historical accuracy). It seems odd to categorise a player in the 1940s as a Lisburn Distillery player when there was no such team until 1999. Occuli (talk) 09:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason "Lisburn Distillery F.C." didn't exist was because Distillery F.C. hadn't yet added "Lisburn" to their name. There was no change in the structure or ownership of the club, so they are essentially exactly the same club with a different name. Newton Heath F.C. players are categorised as Manchester United F.C. players, so I don't see why Distillery F.C. players shouldn't be categorised as Lisburn Distillery players. – PeeJay 02:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge These are one and the same club. All that happened was that the name changed in 1999. It is misleading to distinguish between players of the same club just because of a name change. After a merger, it may be appropriate to change the title of the category to, say, "(Lisburn) Distillery F.C. players". Mooretwin (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All articles in Category:Distillery F.C. players should be moved to Category:Lisburn Distillery F.C. players, and the former category should be deleted, or left as a redirect. – PeeJay 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Occuli is right, there are such cat pages and should be. Mayumashu (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - two cats for one club will be confusing to readers. Mooretwin (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (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.
Dominicans
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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The categories contain articles about people from the Dominican Republic, not people from Dominica or people of the Dominican Order. Categories should make this clear, since Dominican is ambiguous. The second is a borderline delete, judging by the current contents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment Is there a standard demonym for people from the Dominican Republic that we are using in categories? I assume that there are other such categories elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -choster (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2009 (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:Island at War
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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - overcategorization for a single page. Otto4711 (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Small eponymous category, seems unlikely to grow. — ξxplicit 20:49, 23 September 2009 (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.