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. — ξ^xplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:North West Province to Category:North West (South African province)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The name of this province is simply "North West", not "North West Province". The main article is at North West (South African province), so this proposal will result in the category and article matching. Finally, "North West Province" is somewhat ambiguous. (If this category is renamed, I will nominate the subcategories for renaming to match it, since they currently use a variety of formats.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 22:36, 27 May 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canadian Meteorites to Category:Meteorites found in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Since meteorites aren't really "native" to countries—having fallen from space—I think it would make more sense to just say that they are "found in FOO" rather than being of FOOian nationality. If someone has a more elegant suggestion, it would be welcome. (If kept, rename to Category:Canadian meteorites.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good Ol’factory is correct. Meteorites are by definition aliens, and as inanimate objects they cannot avail themselves of naturalization. So the most we can say is that they were found somewhere. (I'm surprised there are no other sub-cats for other countries.) Cgingold (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the nom as reasoned. Mayumashu (talk) 22:37, 27 May 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:DJ-Kicks to Category:DJ-Kicks albums

Nominator's rationale: It's about albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:08, 25 May 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 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Popular songs based on classical works to Category:Songs based on classical works

Nominator's rationale: Rename. If a song that is based on a classical work has an article on wikipedia, that at least makes it notable, and so it shouldn't really matter whether the song is deemed "popular". Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Perhaps I'm misreading the nominator's stated concern, but in this context the word "popular" doesn't refer to "popularity" but rather to "popular music". So I'm not sure I see a problem with the category as named. Cgingold (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Per popular music itself, "popular music" is not a specific genre, and the existing members of the category are not representing a specific genre, but are a disparate group linked only as "Songs based on classical works". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I created this category and simply used the wording I did to contrast classical music and popular music. I don't feel strongly either way about changing it, but I do think the current wording is more descriptive. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 04:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Is - What's been overlooked here is the fact that there is a very substantial group of categories under the umbrella of Category:Popular music, which I've just added as a parent cat for this one. As InnocuousPseudonym points out, the wording was chosen to contrast popular with classical. Absent that distinction, the category turns to mush. Cgingold (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question. There is no category for classical songs only classical compositions, therefore a comparable category would be Category:Classical compositions based on classical works (which doesn't exist). I don't see the need for the disambiguation. What articles would be placed into the category by changing "popular songs" to "songs" that would turn it to mush? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't follow your reasoning here. Maybe "Category:Popular songs based on classical compositions" would be more in line with the terminology of other music categories than the present wording. Also, for what it's worth, there is a category for classical songs: Category:Songs in classical music.

Thank you. I assumed there would be something under Category:Classical music, so just looked there. But, again, are there m/any articles that could possibly be categorized as "Songs in classical music based on classical works" that would result in any confusion here? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added that missing parent, Category:Classical music, which should have been there all along! Cgingold (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Responding to your question, Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, there are many classical works based on popular or folk songs (see Missa L'homme armé and Tahiti Trot for a couple of examples), and there are some classical instrumental works based on art songs (e.g. Death and the Maiden Quartet) and arias (e.g. Chopin's Variations on 'La ci darem la mano'). But there is no significant, distinct body of "classical (art) songs based on classical works". InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As Is - The current wording which emphasizes the classical/popular distinction is clearer and more descriptive than the proposed revision. InnocuousPseudonym (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or change to "Pop songs" which is perhaps the colloquial category. Pop song composers have frequently mined the resources of classical music, so that this is a useful category. The Nom seeks to produce a more fuzzy (and hence less useful) category. If there are some contents that are not Pop songs, they can be removed or placed in another category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:43, 30 May 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Votes for deletion templates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: VFD doesn't exist anymore since some time, and if there's any point in keeping some of the templates here, they should be renamed to "AFD" and recategorized to Category:Articles for deletion templates. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it doesn't matter that VfD doesn't matter anymore, VfD archives still exist, and atleast some of the templates are used on them. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:57, 17 May 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 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These were useful tools at the time and can still serve as models in the future - they are therefore still useful (or potentially so). The simplest solution would be to add a headnote to the category. 'VFD is now obsolete/redundant and these templates are no longer recommended. They are kept here to maintain links with archived material'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:00, 26 May 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. — ξ^xplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Saint John River (New Brunswick) to Category:Saint John River (Bay of Fundy)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Saint John River is bi-national and empties into the Bay of Fundy. In the very least, the category should be named Saint John River (Maine-New Brunswick). This is normal Wiki river naming convention. If a river is in two states, the page is not disambiguated by only one state, it is disambiguated by the body of water the river feeds or by both states, the former however is a "cleaner" approach. In this case the river forms the border of two countries, let alone two states/provinces. Gjs238 (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support noting that the article is now at Saint John River (Bay of Fundy) (since yesterday). (I would withdraw support if the article move proves to be contentious, of which so far there is no sign. The logic of the nom does seem entirely reasonable.) Occuli (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: it seems odd that the category, concerning two states/provinces-two countries, was disambiguated by one province to begin with. Randomly looking through other river articles and categories the majority disambiguate by parent waterbody/river or with two states as noted above. Washington Lake Association (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC) — Washington Lake Association (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) members to Category:Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young members

Propose renaming Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) songs to Category:Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency after the rename at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 18#Category:Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) albums. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and per Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young. Occuli (talk) 13:50, 25 May 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who hate Internet Explorer ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT as this category does not facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia. The fact that this is a "hate" category only sets a terrible precedent. — ξ^xplicit 05:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom's reference to WP:USERCAT. Also, "hating" a particular web-browser is not a defining characteristic. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and creator has agreed to deletion on his own talk page. —fetch·comms 22:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy? East of Borschov (talk) 16:32, 26 May 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 June 2#Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums. — ξ^xplicit 04:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sugar Hill Records (bluegrass) albums to Category:Sugar Hill Records albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article, add {{for}} to dab. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:17, 25 May 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:Vermont (band) albums. (The article has already been moved to Vermont (band).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Vermont (US band) albums to Category:Vermont (American band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Per main article--which I also renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose revert the article name to match the category. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Vermont (band)" per points laid out afterwards. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The main article should remain named Vermont (American band), as documented at WP:MUSTARD#Popular music. The category should naturally match. — ξ^xplicit 04:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, wait. According to Vermont (disambiguation), Vermont (American band) is the only band with this name. Vermont (band) was redirected to the disambiguation page, but I don't see why. Unless another band with the same name exists (and is notable enough to merit an article), Vermont (American band) should be moved to Vermont (band). — ξ^xplicit 04:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename everything using Vermont (band) per ξ^xplicit's insight above. Occuli (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is clearly the best option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Vermont (band) [foo] per above.- choster (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname something so that the article and category match. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:45, 30 May 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 into Category:Mail transfer agents. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:E-mail servers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is redundant to Category:Mail transfer agents. PleaseStand ^(talk) 02:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the main article is at Message transfer agent 70.29.210.155 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see the redunancy now. I don't know why I didn't catch that other category in my searches. And I don't think we can redirect categories. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 12:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. In fact we can have category redirects; they used to gove some one the trouble of patrolling them, but I gather that a bot now does that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:47, 30 May 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. This is an excellent idea for a category, but as it stands, it only has one legitimate member (Éire). No prejudice against recreation if a number of other solid articles come together.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endonyms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With one exception (Éire), every member of this category is either a redirect, or a disambiguation page. Per the Manual of Style, disambiguation pages should not be categorized except in disambig-specific or similar categories, because a disambiguation page is not an article about any topic. For example, Deutschland (disambiguation) is not an article providing information about the endonym "Deutschland". The disambiguation pages could just be removed, but it's hard for me to see how a category consisting entirely of redirects (okay, and Éire) falls into the acceptable situations described at Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, or how such a category is particularly helpful. List of countries by native names seems to serve the same purpose in a much better way. Propaniac (talk) 18:54, 17 May 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 01:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I agree with the nom. I am also uneasy about categorising any article (or redirect) on some aspect of its name. This category is also potentially huge - whole swathes of endonyms are missed out (why are only countries included? What about Kraków or yogourt?) List of countries by native names is much better and could perhaps be put in Category:Lists of endonyms along with other such lists (eg there is also List of countries and capitals in native languages). Occuli (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep and clean up. MOS, as of today, says: "Most disambiguation pages do not need to be placed into any categories other than those generated by the template. If such cases do arise (for example, specific categories of personal names that do not have corresponding template parameters), then the additional categories should be placed after the template.". Here we have a case where (a) each major endonym has a clear primary meaning, that of being an endonym for a geographical or ethnic entity, thus establishing a "common denominator" for a category (b) even when they develop into proper articles, each endonym has a trail of secondary meanings: there are hundreds of things named after countries. I think that this is enough to keep the category afloat. Occuli has already noted that the category is underpopulated with legitimate entries and, on the contraries, contains redirects that, imo, should not be there. So there are two options: either keep, fill up and clean up (who, me?!) or delete and forget. East of Borschov (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion. Although this could be expanded of course and could become a massive category, per Occuli's reasoning I don't think we should be categorizing based this aspect of the name—it's too much like categorization of things based on their name rather than their common characteristics, which is what categories are generally supposed to do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:46, 2 June 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:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights. I make the following observations: (1) There is a consensus that this needs to be renamed. (2) There is a consensus to use "for" rather than "of". (3) There is no consensus in this discussion what comes after "for" and before "civil rights". Therefore, I am defaulting to "Hispanic and Latino American" for the reasons given by Mayumashu—"Hispanic and Latino American" is the standard generic term in WP for this concept. Adding "... in the United States" would be redundant to "American". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Current proposal: Rename Category:Latino civil rights activists to Category:Activists of Latino civil rights
• Alternate proposal: Rename Category:Latino civil rights activists to Category:Activists for Latino civil rights

Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Make new comments below this line. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Activists for Latino civil rights" in this case as less ambiguous. Agree that a broader discussion on naming conventions for "Latino" categories would be useful. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights as the article page corresponding to this United States ethnic group is at Hispanic and Latino American and there is a developed category tree under Category:Hispanic and Latino American people Mayumashu (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but shouldn't it be Category:Activists for Hispanic and Latino American civil rights in the United States? --Soman (talk) 08:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question -- Is Latino the ethnicity of the activists or of those who need the civil rights? The answer will determine what the correct target is. It certainly needs to be renamed somehow. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:50, 30 May 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: Withdrawn by nominator: I will create Category:Ice hockey competitions as a supra cat, and Category:British ice hockey competitions will be proposed renamed to Category:Ice hockey competitions in the United Kingdom at WP:CFD/S afterwards. lil2mas (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:British ice hockey competitions to Category:Ice hockey tournaments in the United Kingdom — C2C (Category:Ice hockey tournaments) lil2mas (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Make new comments below this line. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Ice hockey competitions in the United Kingdom as in the UK these are all competitions, and not all are tournaments (which does indeed suggest a single venue and short duration). Occuli (talk) 00:51, 25 May 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 as nominated. The proposal makes sense; the sole opposition appears to be based on either a misunderstanding or personal animosity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Canadian football history to Category:History of Canadian football. C2C, based on sibling categories in Category:Sports history of Canada and sub-category Category:History of the Canadian Football League. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of discussion at speedy rename section:

• Oppose the main parent for Category:Canadian football history is Category:Canadian football Argolin (talk) 02:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Canadian football history is ambiguous as to its scope: the history of Canadian football or the history of football in Canada? Compare to the case of the similar Category:American football, which has a subcategory titled Category:History of American football. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy rename section at this point. Make new comments below this line. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per most in Category:Sports history by country. Occuli (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, well, the category creator has responded to previous efforts by me to address some issues with his categorization with a string of personal attacks on GOF's talk page, which I've chosen to ignore. I'm not surprised he's objecting here, although I agree it's not at all clear why: other than he has decided I do not have the right to in any way edit his work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 25 May 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.