Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 15



Category:Springs of Holy Land

 * 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 on delete/keep, rename to Category:Springs of Israel to match convention per CharlotteWebb's argument. Kbdank71 16:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Springs of Holy Land to Category:Springs in the Holy Land. X in Y, missing article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That should still be an "of" - . Even then though, I'd say this is a problem. We don't have other categories for "The Holy Land" - we use the (admittedly problematic) current national borders for most geographic categories. This one'll need taking to a full CfD. Grutness...wha?  00:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Shambala is a mythical land. 70.51.11.37 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - there is no significance to the coincidence that these springs are located within what one religion or another has designated its "Holy Land." Judeo-Christo-centric POV-pushing. Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. Postdlf (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Springs of Israel, as this is where all four are located, and because the current convention is to use "of" cf. Category:Springs of the United States and sub-cats for each state (of course I personally think "in" would be better for these categories). — CharlotteWebb 18:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Postdlf (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Sustainable practices by country

 * 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; appears to be sufficiently populated now. Kbdank71 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Sustainable practices by country to Category:Sustainability by country. The proposed name is a broader cateroey and it is nicer grammatically. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not meet any of the speedy criteria; should propose a regular CfD. Good Ol’factory (talk)
 * Comment: Unless someone is planning to set up and populate additional sub-cats, I'd say this category should probably be deleted for insufficient contents, and it's sole sub-cat, Category:Sustainable practices in Scotland (both were created by the same editor), should be renamed as suggested here. Cgingold (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Towns and villages in the West Bank

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Towns and villages in the West Bank to Category:Towns in the West Bank We just started the Category:Villages in the West Bank for Palestinian localities with populations of under 4,000 as per Palestinian Authority policy and have since moved all "village" articles to that category. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not qualify under any speedy criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. I was amazed to discover such a large number of articles about villages -- and sorry that more weren't on a par with Qarawat Bani Hassan. Cgingold (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * REname per nom. But provide each category with a headnote givign the distinction between town and village (that is population above or below 4000 (if that is the crierion) and a cross-reference to the one of the other size.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Towns and villages in the Gaza Strip

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Towns and villages in the Gaza Strip to Category:Towns in the Gaza Strip We just started the Category:Villages in the Gaza Strip for Palestinian localities with populations of under 4,000 as per Palestinian Authority policy and have since moved all "village" articles to that category. --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Does not qualify under any speedy criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Cgingold (talk) 10:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * REname per nom. But provide each category with a headnote givign the distinction between town and village (that is population above or below 4000 (if that is the crierion) and a cross-reference to the one of the other size.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Black days

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * black days


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by naming coincidence. The various included days, everything from the Wall Street Crash of 1929 to a day when South Korean people gather informally to eat noodles with black bean sauce, are unrelated except for (in most but not all cases) having been tagged as "Black something-or-other." The inclusion standard is also arbitrary. How "infamous" does a day need to be for inclusion? Does it have to be "a day that will live in infamy" or is losing American Idol sufficient? Otto4711 (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Categories formed around superficial naming similarities are just misplaced and ill-conceived disambiguation pages.  Postdlf (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as OCAT.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No connection between the events apart from the naming style of the event. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Real Madrid C.F. 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: rename all. Kbdank71 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Real Madrid managers to Category:Real Madrid C.F. managers
 * Category:Real Madrid non-playing staff to Category:Real Madrid C.F. non-playing staff
 * Category:Real Madrid footballers to Category:Real Madrid C.F. players
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. As Real Madrid is a multisport club, "Real Madrid managers" could refer to the managers of any one of their sports teams. As this category contains only the managers of the Real Madrid football team, Real Madrid C.F., the category name should be reflective of this. – PeeJay 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per the nominators rationale, and the fact that categories should match article titles. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as per general football naming consensus. --Jimbo[online] 22:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Demonic supervillians

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * demonic supervillians


 * Nominator's rationale: Intersection with fairly subjective inclusion, apparently created with deleted article Demonic supervillians. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment This appears to be the mis-spelled intersection of Category:Fictional demons and Category:Supervillains. Either correct the spelling or upmerge to the 2 parents. Occuli (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Noting the deletion of the similar Cat:Demon-based superheroes. Otto4711 (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per comments at precedent noted by Otto4711, which apply equally to this category. Postdlf (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 by Afghan province

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:People by Afghan province to Category:People by province in Afghanistan

Also nominating
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * Second-level
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per recently closed discussion, the consensus is "People by (division) in Country". The ones which were explicitly named in the older discussion were renamed, but, these were not. Neier (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. The latter format more clearly expresses physical location, and avoids the use of often wacky demonyms (granted the ones being vacated here are fairly straightforward, but these should be renamed for consistency with those which have already been renamed to avoid specific points of confusion). — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. It's a slight improvement -- why not? Cgingold (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom for conformity with consensus of previous discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

Ships by navy

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Propose renaming of:
 * Category:Royal New Zealand Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy
 * Category:Imperial Russian Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Imperial Russian Navy
 * Category:Royal Thai Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal Thai Navy
 * Category:Australian Colonial navy ships → Category:Ships of Australian Colonial navies
 * Category:Continental Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Continental Navy
 * Category:Imperial Beiyang Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Imperial Beiyang Navy
 * Category:Royal Danish Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal Danish Navy
 * Category:Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal Dano-Norwegian Navy
 * Category:Royal Netherlands Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal Netherlands Navy
 * Category:Royal Norwegian Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal Norwegian Navy
 * Category:Royal Swedish Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal Swedish Navy
 * Category:Russian Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Russian Navy
 * Category:South African Navy ships → Category:Ships of the South African Navy
 * Category:Spanish Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Spanish Navy
 * Category:Turkish Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Turkish Navy
 * Category:Union Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Union Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is for standardization of sub-categories of Category:Ships by navy. A previous discussion from April 2008, with similar renames for 25 other categories, may be of interest. (Note: The first three categories proposed were originally listed in separate entries on 12 July and closed by me for consolidation here. The relevant discussions to the time of closing may be found here, here, and here.) — Bellhalla (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support --Brad (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; Impi (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename all. - Darwinek (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Mastrchf (t/c) 04:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note that an editor took it upon him/herself to implement the one of these proposals already, Category:Royal New Zealand Navy ships → Category:Ships of the Royal New Zealand Navy, and has already migrated all the articles in the former category into the latter. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename alll as nom except "Union Navy", which should be Category:Ships of the United States Union Navy, sicne all appear to be from the American Civil War. Is there a similar category for the Confederate Navy (such as it was)? Peterkingiron (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a Category:Ships of the Confederate States of America in Category:Ships by navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Has any other navy gone by the name of Union Navy? (I don't honestly know.) I note that a comparable category is Category:Ships of the Royal Navy and not, say, Category:Ships of the British Royal Navy or Category:Ships of the United Kingdom Royal Navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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-language films

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 16:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * fictional-language films


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete, over-categorization by a non-defining detail. This topic is already dealt with in the context of the article List of constructed languages. Eliyak T · C 10:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Well-populated category that looks like it's potentially useful, independent of the list in the article. Provides good interconnection with Category:Films by language. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with this category in principle, but I wonder if there is a problem with inclusion criteria. Klingon is a fully developed fictional language, so any film using it would certainly apply.  But there are many sci-fi or fantasy films in which a few nonsense words may have been included as exotic character dialogue, but it would be an overstatement to call it a "language."  We might then decide that any film may qualify in which a character speaks what is identified as a language within the film's fictional universe, even if a fictional language was not actually created beyond a few words, but this may result in just about every sci-fi or fantasy film ever created being included.  Thoughts?  Postdlf (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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 by nationality and its subcategories using the term 'nationality'

 * 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 on 2008 JUL 29. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming

(there are by my count 197 other category pages that would need to be listed (in a separate, second nomination), should discussion here establish a need to do so, work that I am entirely willing to do)
 * Category:People by nationality to Category:People by country
 * Category:People by nationality and occupation to Category:People by country and occupation
 * Category:People by occupation and nationality to Category:People by occupation and country
 * Nominator's rationale: The term 'nationality' is for two reasons problematic. First of all, yet of lesser importance to this rename nomination, is that the term does not necessarily denote mere citizenship, which is the apparent intended meaning here. Secondly and more importantly is that a number of people listed on the subcategory pages of these pages are not citizens of the country they are described as 'belonging' to.  'Booian people' is fine as it does not necessarily denote 'citizens of Booia' (although, for most people likely, it is suggestive of this - a note clarifying what is to be meant by 'Booian people' should be added to each cat page).  The reason this is important is that we commonly on wikipedia categorize expatriates resident to a place as as being 'from' (perhaps 'of' would be the slightly better preposition) that place - the same is true of categorizing by state, county, province, department, etc, not to mention city. For instance 'Booian artists' and 'Booian academics' often include people active in a work in country Booia but who are not of Booian citizen (they often and correctly are double listed under 'Booia 1 artists' and 'Booia 2 artists', one for their citizenship and another for the country they work in, when it differs from the country of citizenship)  The alternative would be to have two separate lists Category:People from Booia and Category:People in Booia (some Scottish places already do with separate 'People from' and 'People associated with' cat pages).  I do not consider myself this distinction to be one worth maintaining.  Mayumashu (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm wary of changing "Fooian people" to have "Foo" include residence and/or place of work in addition to citizenship because too many people have international careers these days. Citizenship has always seemed to me to be the natural implication of "nationality" in this context, and will for most subjects of articles be the most significant way to identify them.  Expatriate categories (Category:American expatriates in France) can capture those other relationships without multiplying every occupation category by their country of residence or workplace that would seem to follow from your proposal.  Postdlf (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * But as it stands, Fooian people already does, as pointed out by Occuli here below


 * Category:Expatriates in France ought not to be a subcat of Category:French people (as an expatriate in France is not French). There are a lot of errors like this throughout the category tree. Occuli (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it s an error - I see 'French people' as meaning people of France and not necessarily simply citizens of France Mayumashu (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As noted above it is (at present) a nationality category, and so correctly contains immigrants but not expatriates. Someone like say Ronaldinho is not in any sense Spanish. He is a Brazilian playing football in Spain. He is not Spanish. David Beckham is not American; neither did he become Spanish when playing in Spain. I was an expatriate in Nigeria; no-one ever told me I had become Nigerian (I was 'in Nigeria'; I was not 'of Nigeria'; I was not 'from Nigeria'). The usage you are suggesting seems to me to be very idiosyncratic. Occuli (talk) 12:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that an expat is in no sense of the country they reside(d) in. He or she is of course, in a primarily sense (the sense of citizenship or nationality) not, but in a lesser sense is (how less dependent on what one does, for how long, relative). I still think the natural link of, say Category:Expatriates in Spain is still Category:Spanish people and not simply Category:Spain.  Not all immigrants become citizens, so why maintain this link and not (other) expats? (User:Hmains, here below, set me straight on that point a while back.) Mayumashu (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Neither nominator nor others provide a solution on what to do about the many subcats that do not involve a country, but truly involve a nationality--either within an existing country or nationalities without a [current] country. Instead of a rename, maybe we need both of each nominated category so everything will have a proper place to go. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A 'nationality' without its 'own' sovereign nation is (still) an ethnicity - such a subcat should be linked with Category:People by race or ethnicity. And the presently listed links for Category:People by nationality are of groups in current, sovereign countries - the heart of this discussion is how expats should be linked to the country they reside in.   Mayumashu (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * if so, first fix the offending links so we can consider renaming these categories based on what should be, and then is, in them. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * and there are several dozen links to Category:People by nationality that are not for current countries as you claim. They are for ancient countries or nations that never had a country.  These are what I am talking about. Hmains (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Mayumashu has done sterling work in sorting out ambiguous booian-fooian categories. We tend to categorise people by place: People from Guildford will be a subcategory of people from Surrey, in turn a subcategory of people from England and then from United Kingdom.  In a country that has experienced as much immigration as UK, some of those people will not be British nationals, though from Britain.  If non-EU nationals, there is a motive to obtain British nationality, mainly for immigration reasons.  Nevertheless, categorisation primarily by place is more satisfactory than by nationality.  However, I would not want to rule out categorisation by ethnicity where appropriate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Psychedelic video games

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * psychedelic video games


 * Nominator's rationale: Very poorly defined category, and from the prior inclusion of Baseball (Nintendo), Tetris and Pac-Man I'm assuming vandalism on the part of the user myself Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, nonsense, OR, and worthless, regardless of whether or not it was ill-intended. Postdlf (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Psychedelic video game" is a subjective term that everyone has a different definition for, which makes this category original research. Also of note is that the user who created the category has deleted this discussion once, removed the CfD tag twice, and continually adds games into the category. See contributions. I normally try to assume good faith, but I think this is probably vandalism. I could be wrong though, maybe they are just a very inexperienced editor that is unclear about Wikipedia's purpose. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC))
 * Delete:, nonsense, there's no such genre of games. Why is this even being discussed seriously?  Its just kids screwing around. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:College baseball records

 * 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 16:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:College baseball records to Category:multiple targets
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-item category, no need to separate it from the two parents. Upmerge to both parents. Otto4711 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.