< January 7 January 9 >

January 8

Category:People executed by France by hanging, drawing and quartering

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 to Category:People executed by France. If further scrutiny reveals that any of the 4 articles currently in the category (Robert-François Damiens, Joseph Boniface de La Môle, Jean de Poltrot, François Ravaillac) belonmg in more specific subcats, they may of course be recategorised through normal dirorial processes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People executed by France by hanging, drawing and quartering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: France did not "hang, draw and quarter" anyone. The sentence was used only in England and later the UK. Parrot of Doom 23:27, 8 January 2014 (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.

CNBC women

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. I was going to upmerge, but since this is now empty... Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Microsoft woman employees deleted at CFD 2013 November 18
  2. Category:Columbia University women was deleted at CFD 2013 November 25
  3. Category:Microsoft women and Category:Yahoo! women were nominated at CFD 2013 November 27. Owing to the shortage of admins, the discussion remains open, but all the editors making a !vote in that discussion support deletion. (closed as delete)
It is sad that the Nov 27 CFD has remained open for so long, but is clear that there is no support for keeping this sort of category. User:Ottawahitech was warned at the November 27 CFD not to continue creating categories which are likely to be deleted, so it is frustrating to see that this category was created by Ottawahitech only a few days ago. There is a WP:IDHT problem here, which is getting into territory of tendentious and disruptive editing. I hope that the creator will draw back before sanctions are imposed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 9 January 2014 (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:Olympic athletes who wrestled professionally

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. A finely balanced debate, but not evidently a consensus to delete, and there does seem something of a special case here given the particular nature of professional wrestling vs. professional [other sports]. However, there is some potential for confusion identified in the naming due to 'athletes' when that was not really the intended intersect, and indeed that appears to be the source of at least one delete. Therefore, I will rename this to Category:Professional wrestlers who competed in the Olympics. -Splash - tk 23:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorized intersection. Many olympians go on to compete professionally (or are already doing so during their Olympic appearance - see many tennis/basketball players for example) I don't see why it is especially of note that certain wrestlers have wrestled professionally. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Olympic boxing and wrestling still require pure amateurs. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan, from your nomination's comparison to tennis and basketball, I'm not sure if you understand that professional wrestling is a scripted combat sport requiring not only wrestling skills but also in a sense, acting, as wrestlers are scripted to play characters as well. It's not the same as Federer playing in the Australian Open after the Olympics. Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is professional baseball a scripted combat sport? There's no comparison. There's not a single swimmer in the category, and the large majority are former amateur wrestlers. Judo and weightlifting backgrounds do add to the "combat sport" aspect of professional wrestling as well. The rest are the absolute minority - therefore I don't really object to them being there. To cut anything than "amateur wrestling" would infringe on judo, weightlifting and possibly any other sport related to "combat" does not seem like a solution to me. Since the rest are an absolute minority, I'd let them stay as a small evil. Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
wait are you saying professional wrestlers are acting? No way. Mind ... Blown... Seriously, I am well aware that pro wrestlers ham it up. Who cares? And I realize that pro wrestling is different than Olympic wrestling. Again, so what? Why is this intersection notable? We don't have 'Olympic runners who became professional baseball players' - so why should this cat exist?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my keep/move vote below. This category is targeted at pro wrestlers, not Olympians, because being ex-Olympians affects how a pro wrestling is promoted, in terms of his character, how he wrestles, and what level of success he is scripted to have coming from a "prestigious" Olympic background. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not Track and Field, the category is referring to Olympian athletes as a whole. I would say that wrestling, whether Greco-Roman or freestyle, is the fundamental basis of the scripted combat sport that is professional wrestling, so it is hardly an irrelevant intersection. Also since we've had judokas who became professional wrestlers with their background in judo contributing to the combat sport aspect we shouldn't just limit it to amateur wrestlers either. Starship.paint (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they've occasionally had wrestling at the Summer Olympics since 708 BCE. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"While the olympics are supposed to be amateur, most participants are professional." - what does this even mean? Are you referring to professional wrestling? I'm sure a lot of Olympians play professionally... but this is definitely not the case for wrestling. Most Olympian wrestlers are not professional wrestlers. Otherwise there would surely be more than a thousand people from over the years in this category instead of less than thirty. Starship.paint (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is not the same case since in many other sports the athletes are already profession when they entered the Olympics. The nominator mentioned how most tennis and basketball players are do do become professional but the main difference many have played for Professional leagues first (ie NBA for basketball and while not mentioned many players in the NHL play Olympic hockey) The difference here is that few if any professional wrestlers were part of the WWE or TNA etc before they were in the Olympics. Also, as mentioned in several cases the wrestlers past Olympic history often plays a significant roll in the development of their characters.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, Mark Henry. I guess "combatant" wouldn't work. Your title's good. But the subject is both Olympians and pro wrestlers, so the current one isn't exactly bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid "athletes" will be confused with Athletics (sport). BrownHairedGirl's comment seems to indicate such errors in understanding do happen. Starship.paint (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. We say "Olympic athletes". Regardless how one feels about athleticism in the pro wrestling sense, there's no reasonably denying the Olympics is athletics, in that article's sense. But like I said, the new title is also good. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I was wrong. Should have read the article first. Hadn't realized people split hairs that way. Long live the new title! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there would have been far more that 29 if that was the case.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just because something is rare doesn't make it defining. Also, it sounds like you're describing a subset of professional wrestlers, not a subset of Olympians. If that's the case, then why not have professional wrestlers who competed in the interamerican games, or professional wrestlers who competed in national-level wrestling competition? What is it about Olympics + professional wrestlers, and only that sport, which is special and defining - and especially what makes this intersection defining? There is no issue with categorizing them as both Olympians and professional wrestlers but we need more evidence that the intersection is a special and defining class in order to create a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a subset of professional wrestlers is exactly what we are talking about. As for the interamerican games or the national-level wrestling competition, come on, which of these has any comparison with recognizability and prestige of the Olympic branding? Not everyone who watches professional wrestling knows about amateur wrestling, but surely a hell lot more would know about the Olympics. NCAA Division I Wrestling Champion... say what? Competed in the Olympics, even better - a medallist at that... now you're talking. For the below, I'm not familiar with lists, sorry. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 10:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A list is just, well, a list. See List_of_Olympic_medalists_in_boxing for example. But you're moving the goalposts now. I've pointed to RS below that discuss, specifically, the impact that amateur wrestling techniques had on their careers - the same assertion your side made for Olympic wrestling techniques. Now you're saying "No, amateur wrestling, even NCAA championships, doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is Olympics + pro wrestling" - why? Based on what RS? Wasn't the claim that it was the techniques of wrestling that made a difference? Now you're saying it's the recognizability of the past athletic experience in the minds of the spectators that matters. Plus, we have guys who were scullers in this category, and people arguing keep above saying we need to filter out swimmers. Other RS talk about the linkage between football, players like the Rock, and how the intense physicality and travel schedule all helped in adopting to pro wrestling. All of this indicates that the keep side doesn't have a clear agreed consensus, and that the category is not workable, because you can't even agree on why it should be kept, nor on the inclusion criteria, nor what makes the Olympics so special as an intersection with pro wrestling. delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for example, look at Baron von Raschke - he competed as an amateur in a number of events, winning national championships and eventually qualifying for the Olympic team. But that was one year - his amateur wresting career spanned a much longer period. Why is the Olympics called out here? Are you saying that a guy who won the national title in Greco-roman wrestling then brought those skills to pro wrestling even if he never went to the Olympics is somehow leveraging less of his athletic abilities? This doesn't work as a category because it's not defining - a better idea would be a list, where you can identify notable moments in the amateur careers of people who became pro wrestlers and sources that explain why that amateur experience made a difference. A binary 'x competed in Olympics then became pro' IN vs 'y competed in nationals then became pro' OUT doesn't make sense nor does it jibe with your claims above that amateur wrestling + pro wrestling has a major influence - they don't teach you special wrestling moves only at the Olympics. A list is a much better solution here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this list provides further evidence that this category is unworkable. [1] - the bulk of wrestlers on this list were competing at a high amateur level, but most went pro before ever trying for the Olympics. But you can't have 'Amateur wrestlers who turned pro' as that would leave out football players, of which there are many, as well as other sports, so then you'd get to a category like 'Pro wrestlers who competed in various sports as amateurs' and at that level you're probably talking about the majority of pro wrestlers overall. The Olympics as a cutoff is arbitrary, and lists in the real world consider NCAA champion wrestlers equally significant for the amateur career and how it influenced their pro career. Listify this...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was a CFD a while back regarding categorizing professional wrestlers by generation. Family relations are important to wrestling fans because the business has sold them on the concept. The same applies to wrestlers who come from an Olympic background. I'll go back a little further than others in this thread. While Verne Gagne was building the American Wrestling Association into a national pretender, he was also providing significant financial and in-kind support to the U.S. Olympic Committee. A major part of Gagne's legacy revolves around the scores of young wrestlers he trained during the 1970s and 1980s. Two of the first of these were Ken Patera and Chris Taylor, both of whom enjoyed some degree of mainstream name recognition by virtue of appearing at the 1972 Olympics. This is where it appears to begin as a formal hype point. Not only could he promote their legitimate sporting backgrounds to their benefit, he could also use those backgrounds to promote his own product. This is perhaps important as by around 1972, pro wrestling was firmly in its wilderness years in terms of mainstream recognition, yet Gagne was working on greater legitimacy for his "lowbrow" profession through a film, semi-regular "big shows" at Comiskey Park and Soldier Field, his continuing Olympic association and other things.
Fast forward a few years. I don't know if anyone else was around during Patera's heyday as a wrestler, but it may help to point something out here. The fact that Patera competed at the Olympics was mentioned nearly constantly and featured rather prominently in his wrestling style. The fact that his older brother was head coach of the Seattle Seahawks was equally as interesting, but since it had nothing to do with furthering wrestling storylines, it was rarely mentioned. Coverage of pro wrestling in Japan has always taken a more serious tone than anywhere else. Japanese wrestlers who competed in the Olympics and had success as pro wrestlers, such as Hiroshi Hase and Yoshiaki Yatsu, were written about in the same elite regard already seen in this thread referencing Kurt Angle and Mark Henry. Yatsu wrestled in the Mid-South promotion in 1982, was featured and promoted as legit. This despite the fact that his name and background meant nothing to American audiences, and Bill Watts is supposedly this virulent racist. To the latter, Watts promoted to fans who grew up watching Danny Hodge wrestle no-bullshit matches for as long as ninety minutes night after night, and always appreciated someone with that kind of background, regardless of race. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 12:48, 26 January 2014 (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:Salvation Army clergy

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per Officer (The Salvation Army). The word "ministers" would be better than "clergy", but "officers" is the term used within the Salvation Army. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 8 January 2014 (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:African-American Methodist preachers

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: REDIRECT to Category:African-American Methodist clergy. I interpret an evident consensus to rename in some manner, and the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 16#Category:Methodist clergy by denomination has established as a matter of fact that in the US, the relevant authority appears to use the term "clergy", so given the more detailed work in that debate it seems sensible to use it also here. -Splash - tk 23:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:African-American Methodist preachers to Category:African-American Methodist ministers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Preachers and similar categories have been deleted multiple times, most recently 2013 May_2. Some members of this category were not ministers, and they should be manually moved up to Category:African-American Methodists; I'm willing to do the pruning. (Note: Category:Methodist clergy was merged & redirected to Category:Methodist ministers at 2013 June_5, and this is part of the necessary follow-up which is being done piecemeal.) – Fayenatic London 17:00, 8 January 2014 (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:Role-playing games that use defined relationships

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. We don't need to categorize role playing games by all of the intricate features of their rule sets. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2014 (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:People from Baldwin, Maine

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. Orlady in particular makes a strong keeping argument which is not effectively challenged, and it is important to note the large number of other similar categories which have not been objected to. Given the background of numerous acceptance of them in Category:People from Cumberland County, Maine, I do not think I can construe this debate as establishing a consensus to remove one particular example. However, I would view this outcome as without prejudice to a wider re-consideration of the granularity of this overall set of categories, so that this particular example might be revisited. -Splash - tk 22:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 14:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really, my larger concern is that this category is a valid part of an overall categorization scheme -- one in which people are sorted primarily by town. There are 19 other towns in this county that have categories that no one is objecting to. Furthermore, because there are several pages in the county category that cannot be categorized by town (because the town is unidentifiable, at least in the current article), removing this category would diminish the value of the overall categorization by throwing the three Baldwin articles in with the stew of articles that cannot be properly categorized. --Orlady (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2014 (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 Black Scottish people

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 to Category:Fictional Black British people and Category:Fictional Scottish people, and DELETE. -Splash - tk 22:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I believe this category should be upmerged as it is too specific; as it is, it only serves to remove one article, "McClaren (Porridge)" from the broader Fictional Black British category. I don't think there is plenty of scope for expansion, and as all Scots are Brits anyway, it perhaps doesn't make sense to single this one out. I'm not even certain McClaren is notable enough to have his own article; that page should probably be deleted. If the situation were ever to radically change, and across various media we were to see a range of article-worthy Black Scottish characters appear, we could always revise this decision.Zythe (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2014 (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:Alumni of St Cuthbert's College, Ushaw

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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 06:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories both refer to Ushaw College, a roman Catholic seminary in Durham from 1808 to 20142011.
I created Category:Alumni of Ushaw College without being aware of the existence of Category:Alumni of St Cuthbert's College, Ushaw, and the two categories have the same scope. They should be merged, and I believe that the category title should follow the name of the head article Ushaw College. Whichever name is adopted, the other title should be recreated as a ((category redirect)). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2014 (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:Female Anglican bishops

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 unchanged. There seems to be dissatisfaction with the close of the 26 Dec CfD in a similar way. It may necessary to re-nominate to achieve a fix and/or consistency. (A side note: I fully agree that the formulation proposed is grammatically incorrect (in at least British English), and should not really be supported whether it is consistent with some other category or not. Be careful of legislating blindly). -Splash - tk 22:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 26#Category:Woman bishops, where parent category was renamed from "Female" to "Women". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 8 January 2014 (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:Male Western (genre) film actors

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: withdrawn by nominator, both here and on my talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar categories such as Category:Peplum film actors and Category:Poliziotteschi actors were already deleted with the rationale: "We really do not want to categorize actors by which genres they were in. Actors move from genre to genre a lot. They move from medium to medium a lot, but genre hoping is almost universal." Cavarrone 09:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
added, obvious inadvertence. Cavarrone 11:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cavarrone: why do you want to delete these two categories but keep Category:Western (genre) film actors? (It is still not part of the nomination).
What about its other subcats, such as Category:Spaghetti Western actors and Category:Red Western actors, and their gendered subcats, such as Category:Male Spaghetti Western actors (which is itself a subcat of the nominated Category:Male Western (genre) film actors)?
This nomination still hasn't been thought through. I can see a possible case for getting rid of all such actors-by-genre categories, but I see neither an implicit nor explicit case for your partial purge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: You are right, the whole main category should go... I'm moving to withdraw this nom and nominating for deletion Category:Western (genre) film actors with all the related sub-categories included. Cavarrone 15:02, 8 January 2014 (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:British Army World War I generals

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Far more logical construction and consistent with Category:British military personnel of World War I and Category:British military personnel of World War II and all their other subcats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2014 (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:Landforms of Karo Regency

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. – Fayenatic London 06:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think it makes any sense to categorize large landforms (mountain ranges, rivers, etc) by small administrative units that are also subject to change. Larger mountain ranges and rivers might fall within multiple regencies. It is also much easier to search them by geographic regions (i.e.islands). Both articles in this category are already in Category:Mountains of Sumatra so the category can be deleted. ELEKHHT 07:21, 8 January 2014 (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.
More