Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 4



Category:Articles in the Article Incubator

 * 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 think it's fair to say that this was a discussion that was pretty "in the weeds" of details, and it's kind of amazing that we had four editors participate. The fact that there was only one editor that objected, combined with the result here, in part suggests to me that there is a rough consensus for deletion. (However, this is not to suggest that all I did was "!vote count" in closing this discussion. I found the arguments advanced in favour of deletion far more convincing and persuasive.) For what it's worth, I have never seen a consensus anywhere that has resulted in empty categories no longer in use being retained for historical purposes. In this regard, categories seem not to be treated the same way as some other historical content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting articles in the article incubator


 * and Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace

And also Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing
 * Nominator's rationale: I understand why the incubator itself was marked historical as opposed to just being deleted, it was at least a semi-active project for a good long time, but preserving this empty category for "historical reference" seems rather pointless. I suppose it's one subcategory, also empty should go with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox is at it again. Obviously, there are or should be many articles in Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the issue under discussion, not the person initiating the discussion. The category was deprecated when the incubator was closed. It is not in use and is empty. This is just some overdue housekeeping. If the community would prefer to keep these two empty categories for some reason that's fine too. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So back to the discussion, the question of the missing articles. Unscintillating (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the discussion we're having, the articles aren't missing at all, they just had the category removed from them when the incubator was closed a few years ago. What we're discussing is whether to keep these two empty categories. Normally this could just be speedy deleted, but because they were marked as historical I brought them here instead, but I can see no historical purpose in looking at an essentially blank page that used to be used to categorize a process we no longer use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace wouldn't have been suddenly depopulated when the AI was marked historical. The number of articles in that category should only have increased with time.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The available evidence suggests you are incorrect and that it was completely taken out of use. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an acknowledgment that you are not prepared to discuss the category. Moving on to the first category, one that we can agree is or should be empty, have you checked to see where the category is being used?  This might be why we retain the category, because without the category, reading the historical templates or their edit history is more difficult.  Thus the marking "historical" on the category.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Moving on from that line of discussion, which I see no point in continuing, I am also adding in Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing although it looks like it could probably be deleted as WP:CSD at any time as there are no relevant incoming links and it already labeled to be deleted should that be the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * delete per precedent If someone can figure out how to repopulate Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace, then there might be some reason to keep it, but simply bemoaning that it is empty isn't going to fill it, and I have no idea how one would go about filling it. The other two categories have no reason for continued existence. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mangoe, The "precedent" you've cited shows the opposite of your assertion, it shows that the nominator of that discussion is the one who marked this category as historical. Two different cases.  So are you going to pivot to a new reason to delete, or keep the same logic and switch your !vote?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As for the 2nd category, I posted Template:Incu-grad on a couple of articles and they populate Category:Article Incubator graduates. Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting, that makes the other one seem entirely superfluous, which is probably the actual reason why it is empty, not the one I thought. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, this has taken us closer to deletion. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please answer the question. Unscintillating (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you aren't making any argument that either (a) this categories ought to be nonempty now, or (b) ongoing work is going to occasionally populate them in the future, no, I'm not going to change my vote, and the precedent for deleting these categories does apply. Spell out what these "missing articles" are and make some actual argument for that, and at least leave off the low-grade invective. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Invective? Our article on that word states, "Invective (noun), from Middle English invectif, or Old French and Late Latin invectus, is an abusive, reproachful or venomous language used to express blame or censure; also, a rude expression or discourse intended to offend or hurt. Vituperation, or deeply seated ill will, vitriol."  My last previous post to you concerned a lighthouse article that I wrote, in response to a comment you made about lighthouse articles.  So, sorry that you think this has something to do with invective, and I have no idea what you are talking about.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying why you think deletion applies. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your previous argument was "delete as per precedent". The "precedent" was a previous discussion by an editor who feels that the main category (Articles in the Article Incubator) being discussed here should be not deleted but marked historical.  Since you consider this person to be an authority, I have found it illogical that you would cite him for doing the opposite of what he believes.  As for the argument concerning historical categories, I fail to see any case for deleting empty historical categories.  This defeats the purpose of marking them historical.  Category:Articles in the Article Incubator was the centerpiece of the incubator.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete empty categories, there is no indication they are going to be populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Historical categories are not active, so don't need to be populated. Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Afaics, historical categories don't exist, only historical guidelines and policies exist, per Policies_and_guidelines. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reference you've cited states, "Other pages are retained for historical reference and are marked as such." If you look at the logic design of Template:Historical, you will see that there is different text provided for policies and guidelines, and that the logic identifies this Category as a "page", not a policy or guideline. The idea goes against common sense, since the loss of the instructions on this Category, and also the edit history for the Category, are central to the structure and history of the Article Incubator.  This category is mentioned at the very top of WP:AI.  For amplification of the meaning of "historical reference", Project namespace states,
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

A historical page...is one which is no longer in use...and is kept as a record of past Wikipedia events that have a noteworthy value in being maintained as happened.
 * ===Historical pages===
 * ===Historical pages===
 * ===Historical pages===
 * }
 * Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Category:Articles in the Article Incubator is marked historical as per community consensus. It was the central category for identifying articles in the incubator.  It is not an active category, so the fact that it is not populated is normal.  The purpose of the other two categories has yet to be identified, and the creator, as far as I know, has not been notified of this discussion.  Given the absence of information, they should be marked historical.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The reason we keep historical pages is so we can point at them and say "we tried this, and eventually decided it didn't work out" not a a memorial. The histories of all three categories are extremely brief and do not provide some critical insight into the workings of the incubator. What 'historical value" is there in keeping an essentially blank page? (Hint:none) You seem to be arguing from an emotional place about something that really is just simple housekeeping. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, editor's contributions are the lifeblood of the encyclopedia, so deleting them is not "just simple housekeeping". Their essential value is why we have the policy WP:PRESERVE, whose nutshell states, "Preserve the value that others add..."  We also get from Deletion guidelines for administrators, with emphasis in the original, "When in doubt, don't delete."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (1) Category:Articles in the Article Incubator has four paragraphs of instruction, and an edit history with eleven edits, so it is not an "essentially blank page". (2) The only thing we know about the second category, Category:Articles in the Article Incubator moved back into mainspace, is that the close of the RfC directed that the pages of the article incubator "will be marked historical".  (3) Category:Article Incubator candidate in editing was redirected with Revision as of 2010-11-24T11:34:09.  Rationalizing that this redirect page is an "essentially blank page" has no weight, as this description is normal for a redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment A third category was added late into this discussion without being identified as an insertion, diff.  But "And also" is not an argument for deletion for a fundamentally different case.  Its deletion would damage the encyclopedia on page WP:AI by rendering unreadable an entry in an historical infobox, here marked as "Active candidates":
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

Incubator Shortcuts
 * Candidates for Articlespace
 * Active Candidates
 * Candidates for Deletion
 * All talk pages
 * Auto assessed Articles
 * Incubating Articles
 * Graduates
 * Graduates by Quality
 * History
 * Incubator Prefix
 * }
 * Note that damage to the encyclopedia can be seen in other red links in this Infobox. This problem was not discussed for the part of the problem created at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 13.  To repeat part of my statement from there, "Incubation is current policy, and the WP:AI is subsumed at WP:Drafts.  This category is covered by the recent consensus reached at Article Incubator/RfC to close down Incubator.  The RfC included the statements that the incubator's 'pages will be marked historical' and 'any editors who are currently interested in working with the Incubator can carry out the same functions using the Draft namespace'."
 * Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any "damage" here. The redlink is perfectly fine when there is no content behind it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merriam Webster defines "damage" as "something that causes loss or pain". I think we can skip "pain", leaving "something that causes loss".  An empty category has information, including text instructions, that is not present if the page is missing, thus information is lost when the page is deleted.  A deleted redirected category confounds the reader because there is no immediate way to identify the target of the redirect, or that the category was not populated.  As with all of the categories listed here, the edit history is lost.  When information is lost, the historical concept is damaged.  Is there a benefit to damaging the encyclopedia in this way?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Losing text instructions that no longer serve a purpose is not a loss. With this kind of reasoning nothing could ever be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a situation of something "that no longer serves a purpose", as these pages have an historical purpose. As for arguing that if these pages can't be deleted, nothing ever can, that seems to be accurate, as why would there ever be a case to delete historical pages?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The ultimate question is why this page has been marked as historical. There doesn't seem to be a good reason for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a current RfC about empty log pages at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion.  One of the discussions referenced there is Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 19.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about empty log pages that are part of a series of non-empty log pages. Seems like a completely different case. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In part, sure; but there is another point here that this is a discussion of the difference between empty log pages and missing (deleted) log pages. Log pages that are empty and categories that are empty provide information that does not exist if the page does not exist.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There are no "missing" pages here and these increasingly desperate, increasingly ridiculous arguments are just cluttering up this discusion. You really, really, really want these empty unused categories kept, no matter what. We get it, and so will the closing admin, you can stop coming up with new, increasingly odd reasons for that any time now. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that preserving history and following our policies including WP:PRESERVE, and accepting the community consensus to mark the pages of the incubator "historical", is "nonsense". Policies are widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument I presented above did not say that there were " 'missing' pages here"...rather the "missing" pages was a reference to the discussion about log pages. However, perhaps the analogy applies in that the evidence is that the damage identified indicates that pages of the incubator are missing due to previous deletions.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * PRESERVE is about article content, it has nothing whatsoever to do with empty categories from project space. You are letting your desire to always get in the last word cloud your reasoning. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the theory that WP:PRESERVE only applies to article content, I couldn't verify the hypothesis, nor has the above comment provided evidence to support the hypothesis. The first sentence of the policy states:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF"

Wikipedia is the product of millions of editors' contributions, each one bringing something different to the table, whether it be: researching skills, technical expertise, writing prowess or tidbits of information, but most importantly a willingness to help.
 * }
 * That text in the first word wikilinks the word "Wikipedia" to the page About. The nutshell there begins:
 * {| style="background:#DDFFFF" class="messagebox standard" style="padding: .5em; "

| |This is a general introduction for visitors to Wikipedia. The project also has an encyclopedia article about itself, Wikipedia, and some introductions for aspiring contributors. . . |
 * }
 * What we see in those two quotes is that WP:PRESERVE applies to "Wikipedia", and "Wikipedia" is identified as a project. This is, of course, secondary to whether or not this is directly applicable to the CFD, as WP:PRESERVE was cited as part of a refutation to the argument that historical pages can be deleted for "just simple housekeeping", and cited to show the general desire of the community to preserve editor's contributions.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And what you see if you actually read PRESERVE past the very first sentence is literally the entire thing is about article content and does not mention categories or project space, or even "pages" while repeatedly using the term "article". So, yeah, my supporting argument was based on actually reading and understanding it, not just cherry picking the first sentence and juming to an unwarranted  conclusion. I don't know why I bother talking to you though as I'm sure you'll jst switch gears again and go grasping for straws somewhere else. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2016 (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:Political party flagbearers (Ghana)

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting political party flagbearers (ghana)


 * Propose deleting Category:2016 political party flagbearers (Ghana)
 * Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is defining and no broader categorization tree for this seem to exist. Brandmeistertalk  21:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please Expand to include subcategory. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Brandmeistertalk  08:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete along with Subcategory appears to be an honorary roll, seems akin to a WP:PERFCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- We have no article on flagbearers, to make clear what this role consists of i9n Ghanaian politics. The two people listed appear to be the present President and the presidential candidate of another party.  They should both be adequately categorised for their other positions.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2016 (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:1250 in Egypt

 * 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 repopulate. Adding new contents to a category during a CfD discussion is rarely disruptive, as it may demonstrate the scope (whether substantial or negligible) for the category to be useful. Removing contents is however considered disruptive, unless the categorisation was objectively wrong, in which case this should be explained in the edit summary. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:1250 in Egypt to Category:1250 in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
 * Propose merging Category:Years of the 13th century in Egypt to Category:Years of the 13th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
 * Propose merging Category:13th century in Egypt to Category:13th century in the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)
 * Propose renaming Category:13th-century Egyptian people to Category:13th-century people of the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo)


 * Nominator's rationale: An obvious case of anachronistic doublicity. We already have a profound Mamluk Sultanate tree for that period. GreyShark (dibra) 07:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge but a lot else also needs merging. My preferred target would be "Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt" (as in the heading of the infobox on the main article), rather than its present title Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo).  Egypt is of course the Greek name for the area, not a native one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not have preference on this in general, but we should deal with the article name later on, as a more complex issue.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose, both events in 1250 took place before the establishment of the Mamluk Sultanate and half of the people in Category:13th-century Egyptian people are pre-Mamluk. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You have just added plenty of articles to Category:13th-century Egyptian people in purpose to back your claim. This is clearly disruptive.GreyShark (dibra) 06:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely not disruptive, we need to find a solution here that also fits pre-Mamluk people who are supposed to be in Category:13th-century Egyptian people if existing. The category was simply not populated well enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is already Category:People of the Ayyubid Sultanate.GreyShark (dibra) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't exclude 13th-century people of the Ayyubid dynasty from the 13th-century Egyptian people category. Besides the oppose was for two reasons, it was not only about people. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have no objection to any "anachronistic doublicity (sic)" when one category refers to the name of a state that existed at the time and the other category refers to the name of currently existing states. When an average person – and for that matter, historian – speaks about things that happened in the 13th century in current-day Egypt, I guarantee that they are far more likely to speak about those things happening in "Egypt" than the "Mamluk Sultanate". Readers are also far more likely to search for such information using "Egypt" than "Mamluk Sultanate". I don't think we need to fetishize the usage of time-specific state names in order to avoid "anachronisms". Historians and other writers of reliable sources do not generally worry about such things, so why should Wikipedia? To be clear, I'm not saying categories which use the time-specific names are necessarily inappropriate – I just think that there is room for both schemes to co-exist. User:Marcocapelle's reason for opposing also has merit. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is category:Medieval Egypt for addressing the current entity.GreyShark (dibra) 07:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - given that the Mamluks were effectively confined to Egypt until 1260 then a separate category seems valid, even if I suspect that a vast majority of Wikipedia articles about that time are about people most famous for what they did with the Mamluks. Even then, they probably spent more of their lives under non-Mamluk rule than Mamluk rule, and the whole concept of nationality gets a bit vague once you get back to that time. More generally, simplicity and predictability/"guessability" are highly desirable in category names, which is why we don't categorise non-royals in Tudor and Plantagenet cats, it's all England. I'm not saying that applies in this case, like the Ottomans the boundaries of the Mamluks at their peak don't map to any one country, but like Good Olfactory I think in general editors are a bit quick to over-complicate the category hierarchy.Le Deluge (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose along the lines of Good Ol’factory. It's a widespread problem and we should approach it from the perspective of naive users as much as possible.Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer, if the nominated categories are kept, the December 13 purging in Category:13th-century Egyptian people by User:Greyshark09 should consequently be reverted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2016 (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.

Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata

 * 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 the first three to the corresponding Viceroyalty of Peru categories, and to a new  Category:Governorate of the Río de la Plata. Keep the fourth one. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:16th century in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata to Category:16th century in the Governorate of the Río de la Plata (edit: or merge to Category:16th century in the Viceroyalty of Peru)
 * Category:17th century in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata to Category:17th century in the Governorate of the Río de la Plata (edit: or merge to Category:17th century in the Viceroyalty of Peru)
 * Category:1760s in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata to Category:1760s in the Governorate of the Río de la Plata (edit: or merge to Category:1760s in the Viceroyalty of Peru)
 * Category:Centuries in the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata to Category:Centuries in the Governorate and Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata (edit: or delete a bunch of stuff from this category)
 * Nominator's rationale: The Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata did not exist until 1776, so it should really be referred to as the Governorate of the Río de la Plata before this date, when it was a subdivision of the Viceroyalty of Peru. See Governorate of the Río de la Plata.  If we want to get really nitpicky, there's also a time where it's "New Andalusia" and another time period where both the Río de la Plata and Paraguay were under one governorship, but I think it's clear enough that this category should exclude Paraguay activities.  SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename/Merge to "Viceroyalty of Peru" categories - Governorate level is too detailed for Wikipedia.GreyShark (dibra) 07:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support also adding Category:Governorate of the Río de la Plata per Marcocapelle.GreyShark (dibra) 07:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * REname if kept, but there are far too categories in this tree for the number of actual articles. Accordingly, I would support merging, perhaps to the Peru tree.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:16th century in the Viceroyalty of Peru‎ etc. per above discussion but also merge to Category:Governorate of the Río de la Plata. While subdividing the governorate in centuries and especially decades is a bit over the top, an overall category for the governorate should definitely be allowed, and also a subcat for its governors. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator. I've added the potential merge targets above.  I am still in favor of just a rename since the geographical location is still relevant (the Viceroyalty of Peru was HUGE, some subsectioning is probably fine), but a merge is acceptable as well. (Although we'd probably want to change the docs at Category:Viceroyalty of Peru to strongly emphasize that Rioplatense & Paraguayan activities before the split are in-scope of that category.)  If we did merge, I'd be in favor of creating spin-off categories for the Governorates per Marcocapelle, and merging anything in the current categories into them as well.  (If that's technically feasible to merge to two categories at once.) SnowFire (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2016 (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.