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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest we delete Category:Betrayal in fiction because it is both incredibly nebulous in definition, and so common as a plot element as to be completely useless as a defining trait. Might as well have Category:Villainy in fiction. --erachima talk 22:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as far too broad in scope to be serve an encyclopedic purpose. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I guess that erachima's right. —017Bluefield (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Way too common. Plus, it is being misapplied. It should have articles like Fred's betrayal of Marci. Not articles on shows.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2013 (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. Well, I think that if there is consensus, it is to have a discussion on how the architecture categories are actually used and not to make a change here at this time. So feel free to have that discussion and if needed, bring proposed changes back here for additional input/action. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Architecture in Turkey to Category:Turkish architecture

Nominator's rationale: Merge. An opposed speedy. In theory, there could be a difference between the two, but they should be merged for the following reasons:

1. Conformity with overall scheme: In Category:Architecture by country, this is the only country that has two different categories, one for "FOOian architecture" and one for "Architecture in FOO".
2. Lack of need: Any architecture in Turkey that could be described as something other than "Turkish" is already categoried in Category:Turkish architecture by period and/or Category:Buildings and structures in Turkey, both of which are subcategories of Category:Turkish architecture.
3. Lack of meaningful division in practice: Examining the contents of both categories reveals that in practice, there is no sharp distinction being made between what goes in one category versus what goes in the other.
4. Age: The target category was created in 2006. The nominated category was created in 2011. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not all architecture in Turkey is "Turkish". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read #2 above? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Purge so it only includes things created since the foundations of the modern nation state. That is the criteria laid down by the parent article. There is no meaningful distinction between these two subjects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Architecture from the Ottoman period in Greece, Bulgaria, Syria, etc. may be Turkish architecture but not in Turkey. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is anyone reading #2 or even looking at Category:Turkish architecture by period, which is a subcategory of Category:Turkish architecture? It sure doesn't seem like it, because it directly addresses the issue that everyone is citing in opposition to the proposal, and no one is offering a counter proposal for organizing what already exists. Never mind that almost everything that is currently in Category:Architecture in Turkey is decidedly Turkish—not Ottoman or Syrian or Bulgarian. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Questions... what is the intended scope of this category? Is the category intended to be geographical in scope (ie articles about various forms of architecture within the boarders of Turkey), or design oriented in scope (articles about architecture that is of Turkish design, where ever it may be). If the latter, I think there needs to be clarity on what constitutes "Turkish" design (and whether Ottoman design is distinct from Turkish design)? Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there is no existing scheme for "Architecture in FOO", I think we have to assume that "FOOian architecture" could refer to a geographical scope—it's Turkish because it is in Turkey. But as you suggest it also could refer to a design-oriented scope—it's Turkish in nature. But from what I can see, in practice (as they are applied), these categories are largely geographical in nature, not design-oriented. Which is why I am suggesting a merge—there is no other scheme for architecture of a purely geographical scopeGood Ol’factory ^(talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If anything, being that these categories are geographic in nature, the "Architecture in Foo" naming makes a lot more sense, as the use of the preposition makes it far more clear that we are talking about, well, architecture in a given locality, while the use of the adjectival form, which does not necessarily mean a geographic description (especially in areas where borders have changed) has clearly caused more confusion. If anything, the whole scheme really needs to be rethought for that reason. oknazevad (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Oknazevad that the "the whole scheme really needs to be rethought" but for a different reason. Why do we need to categorize architecture by country? Doesn't that duplicate Category:Buildings and structures by country? For example, what is the value of identifying Kuyularonu Mosque as part of Mosques in Turkey and Architecture in Turkey?
  I think architecture ought to be subdivided by style, design, and/or period, and possibly further by country (e.g., Category:Art Deco architecture in Turkey‎), but a category such as Category:Architecture in Turkey should be merely a container category for subcategories such as Category:Art Deco architecture in Turkey‎. Delete, or manually merge to appropriate subcategories of Category:Turkish architecture. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are good points with which I agree. I think this one case serves to highlight why the current scheme has issues. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without doing anything and then reorganize the categorization scheme. As noted above, "Turkish architecture" should be architecture somehow connected to Turks, regardless of its location; things built by the Ottoman Empire in Yemen, for example, would be Turkish architecture. Meanwhile, "Architecture in Turkey" should include anything in the modern country, regardless of whether the building's connected to the Turks. Imagine an article about Roman architecture in Constantinople, or an article about a building at Catal Huyuk; neither one is even remotely Turkish, but both of them are examples of architecture in Turkey. Finally, I agree that this by itself isn't sufficient: we need to reorganize the child categories. "Architecture in Turkey" should be a parent category for "style1 architecture in Turkey", "style2 architecture in Turkey", etc., and buildings shouldn't be in that structure except by being included in their architectural style categories. "Turkish architecture" should include buildings directly, and we should have a "Turkish architecture in Turkey" category for buildings that fit into both category schemes; regardless of the name, Category:Turkish architecture in Turkey should be treated just like Art Deco architecture in Turkey. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The difference between pre-Turkish architecture and "Turkish architecture" is much larger than in most countries - too large for this change. Plus as pointed out above too much "Turkish architecture" is not in Turkey. Johnbod (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2013 (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 Category:Listed buildings at risk in Somerset to Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register in Somerset and Category:Buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register to Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose moving Category:Listed buildings at risk in Somerset to Category:Buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register in Somerset or Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register in Somerset

Nominator's rationale: I've just started adding entries from the 2013 Heritage at Risk register (published today) which replaced the official designation of Listed buildings at risk some years ago. Many of the entries are Ancient monuments rather than Listed buildings and not all of them are even buildings. One of the parent categories is the national Category:Buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register If the second name for the Somerset list should be adopted then I would propose renaming the national parent category, but I am unfamiliar with category procedures and how to do all this.— Rod ^talk 18:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Buildings at Risk Register this change of name occurred in 2008 and the register now includes the most important archaeological sites, registered historic parks and gardens, registered battlefields, and the protected wreck sites that lie off the coastline as well as buildings. So we are at least 5 years out of date.— Rod ^talk 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would make more sense to name the categories to "Heritage on the Heritage at Risk Register in Somerset" or just "Heritage at Risk in Somerset". This would be more in keeping with the current terminology used. The same applies to the main category. Wdeed ^talk 09:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move of Category:Listed buildings at risk in Somerset to Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register in Somerset, and concurrent move of Category:Buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register to Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register. To match the main article title: Heritage at Risk which as Rod points out superseded the Buildings at Risk name (in England) several years ago. I prefere 'structures' to 'heritage' but thats just me. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Listed buildings at risk in Somerset to Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register in Somerset, and concurrent move of Category:Buildings on the Buildings at Risk Register to Category:Structures on the Heritage at Risk register as per Oldenbuck. Note that the category has not been tagged.Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominators response Thanks for all comments. I'm unsure what you mean by "category has not been tagged" - could someone who understands the process do this for me? I'm also a little concerned re the use of "structures". I'm currently writing an article about a site listed on the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens of special historic interest in England which is on the Heritage at Risk register, but none of the buildings on the site is on the at risk register - therefore no "structures" but there are official concerns about the effects of development on the landscape.— Rod ^talk 09:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no notice on the category pages to direct people to the discussion, as per Step II of the instructions. I've tagged both cats now. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support revised nom (but purge if necessary) -- "Heritage at risk" is slightly wider than "listed buildings at risk". The present headnote includes buildings on local authority lists, which will (probably) not be on the EH Heritage at Risk Register; hence purge. I suspect that the local lists will vary in quality (even existence) between districts, so that they do not provide a good basis for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, agree that local lists are unlikely to be useful in this context, should stick to the main Heritage at Risk register. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2013 (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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kongsberg Jazz Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:SMALL as a single-item category. Was initially tagged as empty the day before the eponymous article was added. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable award category that is not a defining characteristic of an individual. —  dainomite   01:55, 11 October 2013 (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. After many similar discussions, it appears that we still don't have a consensus on when these should exist and when they should not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fitz and The Tantrums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content--subcats can be interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – as the most elegant way of interlinking its 3 subcats. Oculi (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fitz and The Tantrums does a fine job of interlinking the contents of each subcat, and per WP:OC#Eponymous, "The eponymous article in question typically already contains links to articles directly related to the subject (which would thus be potential members of such categories)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It links & categorizes several of the band's related subcategories and articles into one place. Scanlan (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - pretty much every band is going to accumulate member, album and song sub-categories. That fact doesn't warrant creating an eponymous category for every band. Eponymous categories should be reserved for those people and groups whose material is so extensive that not having a category serves as a barrier to navigation. That is clearly not the case here and the category should be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2013 (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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 10

• Propose deleting Category:UK BAP habitats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a type of habitat is mentioned in the UK's biodiversity action plan is not a WP:DEFINING characeristic of that habitat - especially where a habitat (e.g. deep-water coral) is not specific to the UK. Note: The list (in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan article) includes many things (e.g. Rivers) that clearly should not be in any country-specific category. Note: If kept, this category should be renamed to avoid the "BAP" acronym as it may not be familiar to many people. DexDor (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Populate but rename to Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. -- This is a difficult one. If kept, it should be Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. As I understand it, these are types of habitat that are scarce in UK, and thus require particular study and conservation. The problem is that most of the potential articles are red-linked. Others such as rivers and ponds are common in many countries and not adequately defined and for them it is a mere performance category. However Calaminarian grassland and Purple moor grass and rush pastures may well be useful to have in a priority habitats category. The fact that they are identified as priority habitats is likely to indicate that they are internationally scarce. Deep-water corals, also known as cold-water corals occur on the European Continental Shelf. The origin of the coral beaches on the west of Ireland and off Norway has only been recognised in the past 30 years: this is not the common corals of the tropics. I suspect that propulating the category better should not be too difficult, by converting some the red-links to redirects (or redirects with possibilities). For example Lowland heath is a nationally scarce habitat, but we have an article on Heath, which is a worldwide one and might be forked to provide such an article. Sorry, I cannot do this, as I am not qualified to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The list in the main article is sufficient at this time. The biggest problem is the apparent lack of articles on this topic. While the National Vegetation Classification system lists wet woodlands are all wet woodlands intended to be in the category? In the case of Deep-water coral, does the UK classification define these around the world? Are they all covered by this classification? Once we have clarity and more articles specific to the specific areas then recreation should be allowed with clear guidelines and an appropriate name along the lines suggested by Peterkingiron. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (with regret) delete -- I had hoped that my comments above might have generated more support, but it has not. The underlying subject is clearly a significnat one, but it would be necessary that there were more specific articles on classified habitats. I am not qaulkified to produce these. Accordingly, I think that we cannot keep the category at present. I would however hope that one day we will have a category to with the list, but this would have mainly to be categorising articles about those habitat classifications in UK. At presetn we do not have enough dedicated articles to warrant keeping the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - at present this is much better dealt with as a list than as a category, unless (or until) UK-specific articles (for example Deep-water coral in the United Kingdom) can be generated. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2013 (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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Indie music record labels to Category:Indie rock record labels

Nominator's rationale: Per indie rock (a genre) and indie music (which is any music not released through a major record label). This is about music released in that idiom of alternative rock, not any music that isn't released by the Big Four/Five. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per nom and to match the main article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:34, 10 October 2013 (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 purge if necessary). (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and Delete Category:Jeopardy! contestants
• Nominator's rationale This category is a performer by performance category. John McCain is not notable for being a Jeopardy contestant for example.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are people whose notability arises from they're being a Jeopardy contestant. Ken Jennings, Chuck Forrest, Frank Spangenberg to name three....William 15:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and purge - I wish the nominator would either stop nominating these sorts of categories altogether in light of several calls for a centralized discussion, or at the very least do them all at one time instead of spreading them across days and days. The category descriptor shows that it is not designed for Celebrity Jeopardy contestants so McCain may be safely removed along with other CJ contestants. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure what all categories are in mind, but the way these categories have gone down varies a lot with specific categories. Specifically Category:Idol presenters was deleted, so it is clear that the issues involves varry with specific cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've said in a couple of these debates, "performance" on a reality or game show is distinguishable from "performance" in works of fiction. The vast majority of people for whom being on a reality or game show is a defining characteristic are not going to be in multiple such categories that way that a performer in fiction will be. It may be that reality or game show participant categories fall outside what the community wants to utilize. That's why a centralized discussion is a better approach to this situation than these dribs-and-drabs nominations. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup as needed The description of the category provides a well-defined description of a strong defining characteristic. Providing a counterexample that specifically contradicts the definition of the category merely provides an example of the cleanup that may be necessary. Alansohn (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is what was posted on my talk page after I removed McCain from this category "Hi. Can you point to some actual guideline that supports your removal of people from categories they are "not notable" for, such as Category:Jeopardy! contestants? The category system traditionally does not work that way. If you grew up in a place, you are put in the "People from" category for it, regardless of whether you are famous for having grown up there. Same for what university you go to, and so forth. If we go down this route, many many category removals will have to be made. Take John McCain, for instance, which I am the main editor of. I can tell you that besides not being "notable" for being a Jeopardy contestant, he's also not notable for being a Baptists from the United States (he's not very religious) or for being a Commanders of the Order of Ouissam Alaouite (whatever that is) or for having attended Episcopal High School in Alexandria (he moved around a lot) or for his association with the International Republican Institute or for being a National Heroes of Georgia or for being a Recipients of the Air Medal (he's only famous for being shot down, not for the missions before that) or for Recipients of the Legion of Merit or Recipients of the Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana, 1st Class or Recipients of the Order of the Three Stars, 2nd Class or Sons of the American Revolution, among others. Now some of the categories he really is "notable" for, including the political ones and Naval aviator and Vietnam War prisoners of war. But do you really propose to delete all the others? If so, where is the guideline telling all of us to start this big purge? If not, why pick on just Jeopardy?" That said, with the last line saying "This category is to include both champions winning large sums of money and those persons who competed on Jeopardy! but are otherwise notable." that seems like an invitation to include people who do not have their notability related to jeopardy at all. At a minimum we should change the wording to say that only people notable for being on jeopardy should be included.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category definition is the correct one, and just to be clear, John McCain was not a Celebrity Jeopardy contestant - he earned his way on it as a young, pre-famous Naval aviator just like everyone else and won once. Ditto Rush Holt, Jr. - appeared on it as a non-famous scientist and was a five time winner. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2013 (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: Kept. Nomination withdrawn, no other delete votes. --erachima talk 04:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Defunct prisons in Connecticut (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Single-item category Eggishorn (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As part of a structure by state in the U.S. that more effectively aids navigation across prisons within a state, operating and defunct, while dumping them into a single national category provides no way to navigate. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and "Smallcat". There are 35 US states etc with a “Defunct prisons” category, and 13 have only one article in the "defunct" category. Hugo999 (talk) 04:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination I found that some of the redlink pages on Connecticut prisons are currently closed. As I am working on creating pages for those prisons, these closed prisons should logically increase the size of this cat. Eggishorn (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2013 (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.