< July 1	July 3 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Documentary films about women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Far too vague and broad of a category. It's also not clear to me that simply because a film is about a woman it is necessarily a feminist film. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Part of an established family of categories in Category:Documentaries about people. A different parent (feminism) does not control the reasonableness of this category. Hmains (talk) 19:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (at least that's where I'm at now: I may change my mind). I was doing a lot of work in the documentaries categories and I remember admin Bearcat creating this. Hmains beat me to the punch: the category never claims to be about "feminist" documentaries and it may just be a case of removing the Category:Feminist films master cat, which I had placed there, thinking it would aid navigation even though it wasn't an exact fit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - After looking at the contents of this category I have to say that I am scratching my head, wondering why it has been taken to CFD (btw, it's not clear what the nominator is proposing -- deletion??), as it is clearly serving a proper navigational function. As for Category:Feminist films, it probably should be a sub-cat rather than a parent cat. (Alternatively, the two categories could be linked horizontally with ((CatRel)).) Cgingold (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All feminist films are not documentaries, so ((CatRel)) might be the way to go. I do think this is a perfectly reasonable CfD, though. The absence of a master cat Category:Films about women is at least a bit worrisome and I was somewhat surprised when Bearcat created this one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're quite right, of course, about feminist films. As for Category:Films about women, I kind of suspect it might possibly be a tad problematic compared to this one. My sense is that documentaries are likely to be more focused in terms of their subject matter, and therefore are probably more reliably categorized as being "about women". (Though I imagine Thelma and her friend Louise might take issue with that... :) Cgingold (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - vague and overly broad inclusion criteria. Most documentaries include both men and women and saying that a film is "about women" really tells us nothing about the film. Otto4711 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, um... let's say there was a Category:LGBT-related documentary films -- oh, goodness, there is! Well... do you suppose there are any heterosexuals in any of those films? I certainly hope not, because then we might have to apply the Otto Standard... Cgingold (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, how I have missed being away from CFD and its spectacular missings of points and the half-witted comparisons. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming from you, Otto, that's high praise indeed! Flattery will get you everywhere... Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – most of the articles in the category (+ a whole subcat) are manifestly and self-evidently 'about women'. Ones that are not should be cast out. (I expect there could be a subcat Category:Lesbian-related documentary films, an intersection with CGingold's discovery above.) Occuli (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, new category named Category:Documentary films about men should be created to be fair. Having only "women" category is blatant POV. - Darwinek (talk) 09:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I completely agree, but Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality allows for women categories without a corresponding men analogue. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. — ξ^xplicit 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the America (North) Province of the Moravian Church to Category:Settlements in the America (North) Province of the Moravian Church

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the America (South) Province of the Moravian Church to Category:Settlements in the America (South) Province of the Moravian Church

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in the British Province of the Moravian Church to Category:Settlements in the British Province of the Moravian Church

Nominator's rationale: These were erroneously renamed "Populated places..." during the general change of "Settlement..." categories. There is relevant discussion with references at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_13#Leftover_cities.2C_towns_and_villages under the bullet point "Settlements of the Moravian Church". -Arb. (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Given the size of the subcategories, is upmerging to Category:Settlements of the Moravian Church reasonable? If these categories are needed, I might lean to Category:Moravian Church America (South) Province settlements as shorter and maybe more understandable. I'll also add that to most readers, the category names are misleading at best since America (South) is not South America and there is really no clear definition of the boundaries for the America (South) Province in the encyclopedia that I could find. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (or something like it). This is a case where the general rename has gone horribly wrong. The proper name for these communities is settlements: they are not cities, towns, or villages. Even so the names are clumsy, and I wonder if there might not be a way of shortening them. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Sigh. The proposal was intended simply to return things to how they were before the mistaken renaming. However, since the veracity of the old names seems to be in question...

To my mind they are accurate and hence unavoidably long. Here's why:

1. "Settlements" is the proper name for these places (per the above).
2. "Province" is the correct name for a self-governing geographical region of the Moravian Church
3. "British", "America (North)" and "America (South)" are the official names used by the church for the Provinces for which categories are needed.
4. It is necessary to mention the church by name to make the category fully self explanatory.

As for the suggestion to up-merge, please note that:

• This is not the complete set of possible categories in the series. There are settlements in other provinces that do not (yet) have Wikipedia articles.
• The provinces with categories likely have other settlements without Wikipedia articles.

-Arb. (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename back as nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: procedural close has already been done. Courcelles (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose merging Category:Cantonments and military bases of Pakistan into Category:Military facilities of Pakistan.

Nominator's rationale: The former is redundant and both are categorised under Category:Military facilities by country. Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom Actually this looks to have alredy been done, so moot. Hmains (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge all into Category:Military bases in Sindh. Deletion of this can be discussed at a new nomination, if desired. Courcelles (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Delete Category:Cantonments and military bases of Sindh & Category:Cantonments and military bases of Karachi

Nominator's rationale: As you may notice, both these categories are subcats of the one I have proposed above for merging. These categories should be deleted as they are useless - and are based on administrative divisions of a country. You will notice that no country category under Category:Military facilities by country has divisional sub-cats within it i.e. the United States does not have a category like Category:Military facilities of New York City etc. Also, since this is a military category belonging to a country, you can't have something like this (as it doesn't make sense). You cannot have "Military facilities of New York City" but rather "Military facilities in New York City" - and no such subdivision cats exist in the first place anyway. So no justification for these sparsely populated categories Mar4d (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I do not see why Pakistani military bases should not be split by province, but it should be Category:Military bases in Sindh. I doubt we need one for Karachi (a city). I suspect that the US categories are split by state (though I have not checked). Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having it split into provinces, but I do not see the reason. The Category:Military bases in Pakistan would not be populated itself; unless it is very large, then there is a rational reasoning to split it. Mar4d (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 20:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:Swedish people of Sierra Leonean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#NARROW BeIsKr (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Swedish people of Black African descent and Category:People of Sierra Leonean descent. We really should have policy that a minimum of five links is needed to have a cat, and where there is not links are 'dispersed' to the supracategories. Mayumashu (talk) 15:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Would this not be considered part of a "wider scheme"? That's often an exception to the guidelines against having overly small or narrow categories. I'm not sure if we need this particular category, since those in it seem to be more of African American descent rather than of Sierra Leonean (it's a bit removed, as the father is an American of Sierra Leonean descent), but on principle, there should be nothing wrong with the category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of the large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme Category:Swedish people by ethnic or national origin. — ξ^xplicit 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_28#Category:Videos_and_DVDs.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Videos and DVDs to Category:Home video

Nominator's rationale: I'm not 100% sure what this category even is, but it appears to be about home video releases. If so, why is it "videos and DVDs"? Videos are a part of what constitutes DVDs--it used to be the "V"--and there are several other home video formats; should this be named Category:Home videos, Betamaxes, Blu-Ray Discs, HD-DVDs, Laser Discs, and VHSes? Alternate proposal: delete as far too vague and broad in scope; thousands of video albums, theatrical films, television series, and documentaries have been released on home video. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – most of the subcats are not 'home videos', eg Category:Disney videos and DVDs and the large Category:Video albums by artist (unless you have an unusual home). Occuli (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What is this category? What are its inclusion criteria? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose home videos are home movies made on video (ie. that thing your grandfather had that used 8mm winding film camera that you sent to Kodak for processing) ... like your grandfather's wedding film, this has nothing to do with production video. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article Home video is about the video part of home entertainment. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & the Home video article. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Videos. These are all videos, no matter what their format. The inclusion of "DVDs" immediate calls up the requirement to list all other formats in a monstrous global category name like Justin describes. I don't like the ambiguity of "Home videos" (I hear that phrase the same way the other commenters do), so I'd just go with Videos as an ubercategory--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure at all. This category appears to be for "Commercially-produced videos for viewing at home, but not home-made videos, even though they may be DVDs or blueray disc or laserdiscs rather than videotapes". Mike Selinker's suggested rename to videos doesn't include enough of that, and would include youtube videos and other such stuff wot people cannot carry home. Is there are any way of tersely summarising the description I wrote above? Or should we just conclude that that since video exists in so many difft formats, there is no point in distinguishing between those wot come in a retail box and those delivered down a pipe. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Video I believe answers your questions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, AFAICS. It establishes video as an overall term, but it doesn't seem to me help us in either finding a terminology for the subset in use, or in deciding whether to retain this grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning towards rename to Category:Videos. From the contents of the category, these pages seem to be grouped together simply through the format they were released in, while others are completely in the wrong place. For example, the Behind the Player series were all released as "interactive music videos" (whatever the hell that is), which were released in DVD format; Coming Alive in a documentary, a live video album and a full-length CD which released in, you guessed it, DVD format. The subcategories aren't any better: there's Category:Looney Tunes DVDs and Category:Stand-up comedy on DVD (seems like anything released under VHS or Blu-ray Disc format is not worthy), as well as Category:Disney videos and DVDs and Category:Television videos and DVDs (poor little Blu-ray Discs, they're being bullied by the category system). Renaming just seems the way to go. If there need be a Category:Videos by type category, then so be it. — ξ^xplicit 00:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Per our home video article, "Home video is a blanket term used for pre-recorded media that is either sold or hired for home entertainment" (my emphasis). On the other hand, a home movie is "a motion picture made by amateurs, often for viewing by family and friends". cmadler (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think we are getting confused here because of differences in English usage. In the UK and possibly elsewhere Home Video is a term used for amateur videos, it was not until I read the the Home video article that I found that in the USA it seems to be used for commercial videos made for home entertainment. Malcolma (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been speaking American English my entire life, and I had no idea "home video" meant anything in the commercial realm. And searching for "home video" on Google doesn't suggest it's a category that American consumer culture recognizes. Could this be a neologism on Wikipedia? If so, the head article should probably change as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was well and truly misled by the Home video article. On the basis of that if nothing else I would not like to see the category renamed to Home video as it would be replacing one misleading title with another. It seems to me, but I'm guessing again, is that the intention of Category:Videos and DVDs is to list articles about commercial video releases as we do for albums. There is existing Category:Music videos and Category:Video albums but I can't find anything that would cater for example for comedy video releases. The trouble is, I can't think of an accurate title to rename Category:Videos and DVDs to. Category:Video already exists but correctly covers the wider field of video.Malcolma (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and start a formal discussion on renaming the article Home video. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed on the last part, if not the first.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Request Please relist this on today's CfD, so this page can finally be closed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Gossip (band) albums. — ξ^xplicit 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Gossip albums to Category:Gossip albums

Nominator's rationale: Per Gossip (band) and The Gossip. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename but to Category:Gossip (band) albums per many precedents (to follow the article Gossip (band)). Occuli (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming Category:Listed buildings in the Borders to Category:Listed buildings in the Scottish Borders

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Borders" is ambiguous, and the category should follow the naming of its parents: Category:Scottish Borders and Category:Buildings and structures in the Scottish Borders. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support --Change is obviously needed for ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- As per Peterkingiron. Andrewmc123 14:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep and do not rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lower limb anatomy to Category:Lower limb

Nominator's rationale: I want to include some categories like Category:Hosiery that have an obvious connection to legs, but there's no suitable category. I could create another category Category:Lower limb, that would have this present category as a sub-category, but I feel that would be an over-categorisation, and a rename would be better. Fences&Windows 15:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Category:Upper limb anatomy, as that could then include Category:Armwear. Fences&Windows 15:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Anatomy is a tightly defined category and all of its sub-cats should be kept distinct. Clothing for lower limbs is an equally valid category and should be kept separate; and be in a category tree for clothing? (or something). A cross-reference to each would be be ok. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ^xplicit 05:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Supercategorize as lower limb and upper limb; though lower limb clothing and upper limb clothing seems to show WP:Systematic bias towards humans... by supercat-ing you can keep the current categories clean per twiceuponatime, and have a broader categorization. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. The inclusion of Category:Hosiery and other clothing categories amongst muscles, arteries and veins just doesn't make sense. As others have already said clothing belongs to a different category to the anatomical category tree. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. Quite the best is to create Category:Lower limb, subcats Category:Lower limb anatomy and Category:Lower limb clothing and put things in the right places (which doesn't need a cfd and doesn't involve OCAT). Occuli (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ^xplicit 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Washington & Jefferson Presidents football players to Category:Washington & Jefferson College alumni

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a superfluous sub-category of Category:Washington & Jefferson College alumni. Per WP:CAT, categories "should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects." Being a member of the Washington & Jefferson College football team isn't defining. First, it's a relatively small program (currently NCAA Division III). Second, there aren't any people who are notable for their membership on the football team: all members in this category are notable for other things.--GrapedApe (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – or at least explain why this does not apply to everything in the extensively subcatted Category:College football players, to which an upmerge would also be necessary. Occuli (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – And the members of Category:People from Vermilion Parish, Louisiana are not notable because they are from Vermilion Parish, nor are they "defined" by that fact... In fact, you could say the same with virtually all in the Washington and Jefferson alumni category. The first line of WP:CAT is "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles". Strikehold (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – concur with reasons adduced by User:Occuli and User:Strikehold. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete as empty. — ξ^xplicit 23:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Argyresthiidae

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Argyresthiidae actually redirects to subfamily Argyresthiinae. But the article defines this as a subfamily under Yponomeutidae, mentioning that Argyresthiidae is sometimes, but rarely, treated as a separate family in the literature. Since Wikipedia is thus not treating this as a separte family, then it does not need a category. Dawynn (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2010 (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.