Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 8



Category:Christian contemporary radio stations

 * 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 for proposed renames, but rename Category:Christian contemporary radio stations to Category:Contemporary Christian radio stations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Christian contemporary radio stations to Category:Radio stations in the United States with contemporary Christian music
 * Propose merging Category:Contemporary Christian radio stations in the United States‎ to Category:Radio stations in the United States with contemporary Christian music
 * Nominator's rationale: Both these categories contain US radio stations playing contemporary Christian music. Merge both categories together and rename them more clearly to Category:Radio stations in the United States with contemporary Christian music. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Object -- Radio Cracker appears to be British: while that article exists we need a non-US category, conveniently a global one, effectively for the rest of the world. The second category has what may be an appropriate name and does not need changing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Christian contemporary radio stations to Category:Radio stations with contemporary Christian music
 * Propose renaming Category:Contemporary Christian radio stations in the United States‎ to Category:Radio stations in the United States with contemporary Christian music
 * Meanwhile all US radio stations have been moved to the US category so a merge is no longer appropriate. I have adapted the nomination accordingly. That will also satisfy Peterkingiron's objection. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose as unnecessarily long. These two need to be considered alongside Category:Adult contemporary radio stations and its five national sub-cats, known for the genre Adult contemporary music, and Category:Urban contemporary radio stations. Of all music genres in Category:Radio stations by format, only classical and Latin have the word "music" in the category name; it seems sufficient to take it as implied for the others. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * At a very minimum Category:Christian contemporary radio stations should be renamed to Category:Contemporary Christian radio stations, similar to its US subcat and per article Contemporary Christian music. 18:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support renaming that one to "Contemporary Christian radio stations" per main article and Ngram. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:54, 18 November 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:Fictional cancer patients

 * 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) 00:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional cancer patients to Category:Fictional characters with cancer
 * Nominator's rationale: The proposed name is more fitting with categories such as Category:Fictional characters with HIV/AIDS and Category:Fictional characters with neurological or psychological disorders. The word "patients" to me doesn't quite sit right here, but I know why it was used - some characters survive their cancer, so the category creator probably thought "these characters don't have cancer anymore, so we can't say they have cancer". But fiction is always written in the present tense (WP:WAF), so the "past" should be treated as a perpetual present - every point of a character's story is in the here and now. (I tried to rename three other categories in the past for the same reason but opposers seemingly didn't understand the guidelines so the renaming didn't happen and it still irks me to this day.) anemone  projectors  17:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, but... Agree that the word "patients" isn't quite right. I'd support this move, however, what about Category:Fictional people with cancer, to match the category for non-fictional people (IE - Category:People with cancer)?  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Fictional people" isn't a term that's ever used, only "fictional characters". All fictional character categories use it, see Category:Fictional characters. anemone  projectors  17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 19:03, 10 November 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.

naming convention of the subcat of Companies by stock market index

 * 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) 00:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Shenzhen Stock Exchange Component Index Constitute Stocks to Category:Companies in the SZSE Component Index (or Shenzhen Stock Exchang Component Index?)
 * Nominator's rationale: The cat should have some naming convention, which the subcat of US indices were consistent. Should we make the other sub-cat consistent also? Matthew_hk   t  c  16:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I also nominate
 * Category:SSE 50 companies to Category:Companies in the SSE 50 Index (or Shanghai Stock Exchange 50 Index?)
 * Category:Hang Seng Index Constituent Stocks to Category:Companies in the Hang Seng Index
 * Category:Hang Seng China-Affiliated Corporations Index Constitute Stock to Category:Companies in the Hang Seng China-Affiliated Corporations Index
 * Category:Hang Seng China Enterprise Index Constitute Stock to Category:Companies in the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index (with s, see official website)
 * Category:Companies listed on the CSI 300 to Category:Companies in the CSI 300 Index
 * Category:BEL20 companies to Category:Companies in the BEL 20 (euronext site have space but without the word index)
 * Category:BEL-Mid companies to Category:Companies in the BEL Mid Index (euronext use all cap in this page, and Mid in this document)

Matthew_hk  t  c  16:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- Assuming that these work the same way as FTSE 100, membership is not permanent, which means someone needs to maintain the categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I can manage the Hong Kong and China one (as well as upgrading the article of the indices), the rest i am not sure it was maintained or not, especially BEL-Mid doesn't even have their own article. Matthew_hk   t  c  17:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Question, is this a defining characteristic? I checked a number of articles and quite a few did not even mention being part of an index. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- BEL-Mid don't event have their own article actually. Matthew_hk   t  c  00:26, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- I agree to the renaming for reason of making the cats compatible to cat namings in other languages like French and German. -- Just N. 02:24, 5 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:VoIP terminology & concepts

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:VoIP terminology & concepts to Category:Voice over IP
 * Nominator's rationale: This should be upmerged, we don't have a tree for ""terminology & concepts". That's what the parent cat is for. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support upmerge. The articles in this cat aren't about terminology specifically (e.g., glossary articles) and "concept" isn't a defining characteristic of these articles beyond the characteristics defined by the parent cat. --Mark viking (talk) 20:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, this is a similar case as many "terminology" categories that were merged before. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 15 November 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:Operating systems that offer the Xfce desktop

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting operating systems that offer the xfce desktop


 * Nominator's rationale: There is no logical reason behind it. There was a template for it, Template:Xfce and also Template:LXDE, which were deleted last year (2015-07-15) through the discussion which started by, then one of the Xfce/LXDE fanboys , creates these categories at 2015-08-12 !!

The reasons mentionned in that discussion is also valid for these categories.

If the result of this discussion was 'DELETE' then please delete simillar cases:


 * Category:Operating systems that offer the LXDE desktop


 * Template:MATE

Editor-1 (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Thanks for the personal attack, and also for not informing me of this discussion, overall a nice way to start a discussion here. For the record I am not a fan of the Xfce desktop, in fact I have never used it. Quite simply when the consensus was that a navbox to tie together distros that use this desktop should be deleted I started a cat as a much less obtrusive way for readers to find other distros using the same desktop. There is no logical reason to delete a category that shows desktop use on Linux distros. It provides useful information to the readers and it extremely unobtrusive. Your deletion argument does not provide any reason to delete this category beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT, you need to show what Wikipedia policy this category offends to nominate it for deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you don't use Xfce, but you are using LXDE! I also notify you by using the ping template.


 * My english is not good enough to read that links, so I can't provide a reason from the Wikipedia policy pages, but as I said before, the reasons provided in this discussion is valid for this discussion; why only Xfce and LXDE?! Why we don't create a template or category for all or most cases in here and here?! and why not for media players and web browsers and other applications or software suites?!


 * The DistroWatch website is created to provide also this information that what desktop environment(s), software and file system is provided and used as default by linux distributions, It also has the capability to search for famous packages and desktop environments to show what linux distributions provide it. Editor-1 (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion on nav boxes provided a consensus and reasoning for not including desktop environments in nav boxes, not in categories. You need to provide an actual reason why Linux distros should not be catagorized by desktop environment. Your argument that we could create categories for distros by web browser or media players is a straw man argument. We don't do that, no one has done that and it is not up for deletion here. You still have not presented one reason for deleting these categories. You have to show what policy is being offended here for this deletion discussion to succeed.


 * Your use of the ping template did not work, I received no notice of this discussion that way. Perhaps the template is not working right. A talk page notification would have ensured that interested parties could participate.


 * I don't understand your suggestion that we create templates for all cases in Category:Free desktop environments. There are categories for LXDE, Xfce and MATE, which are subsets of Category:Free desktop environments, but categories could be created for other desktop environments as well. Incidentally I did not create Template:MATE, that was another editor who did.


 * Sure I use LXDE, but so what? Why is that a point to insult someone over and how is that relevant to whether a category should exist or not? Does familiarity with a subject preclude editors from contributing on that subject? Are Windows users prevented from editing articles on Windows? Can only people who have never used Linux write about Linux? Using software and being familiar with it are not the same things as being a paid developer or having some other financial interest in it, which would be a WP:COI. I think you might want to review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Ahunt, using the "fanboy" term was a mistake, I'm sorry for that. I used that term due to your high contributions in the LXDE article, not only because you are using it.


 * As I said before, my english is not good enough to read that links, so I can't provide a reason from there. My reason is that a desktop environment is not so much important to have this type of category, there are categories for listing operating systems that support a specific CPU architecture, but a desktop environment which is only an application software does not have the same importance; and also, because a desktop environment is a type of application software, just like media player and web browser, if these categories don't deleted, tomorrow someone can create a simillar category for another applications, this makes the wikipedia categories extremely busy, specially that the name of these categories is so long:

Category:Operating systems that offer the Xfce desktop !!


 * This issue can not be limited to desktop environments and only to LXDE and Xfce, so totally this type of using category must be forbiden for all applications and mentioned in the Wikipedia policy. Editor-1 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The fact that other categories can be created is not a reason to delete these categories. I appreciate that you think that "totally this type of using category must be forbiden for all applications and mentioned in the Wikipedia policy", but in fact it isn't. If you think the name of the category is too long then that would be a reason to move it to a shorter name, not delete it. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Any Linux distro can have any desktop environment — KDE, Gnome, XFCE, etc. — installed by the user overtop of the "default" desktop, so they are not defined by which desktops they offer. I note, however, that there are sibling categories for other desktops, which should probably also be deleted for the same reason. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - That is an interesting argument, but not all distros in fact do offer all desktops. Off the top of my head I can name Puppy Linux as one that has no alternative desktops offered beyond its default one. There is no easy way to install LXDE, GNOME or Xfce, etc. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll grant that a casual or novice user typically won't know how to manually install anything that the distro doesn't already offer through its "automatic installation" repositories — but an experienced user who knows what they're doing, and has the ability to muck around in the system code if necessary, can install any package in any Linux distro whether that package is officially "offered" by that distro or not. It might be more complicated, and require more time and effort, than simply relying on the preexisting repositories, but it is not impossible for a hardcore Linux geek to do. Hell, there are even SourceForge pages where you can download alternate versions of Puppy Linux that have already been tweaked to install GNOME or LXDE or Xfce as the "default" — so even a novice user wouldn't actually have to do all that work on their own. Officially "offered" or not, it is still possible to make it happen. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree it may be possible for someone with extraordinary Linux admin skills to do something like that, but the intention of this category, as shown in the category title, is to group distros that actually offer the desktop in question. That makes the potential category membership much smaller and also discrete and useful. Not all distros offer all desktops in a way that an average user could install them. - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We categorize on WP:DEFINING characteristics, not "degrees of difficulty". A distro is not defined by the desktop that it officially "offers", because it's still possible to install an "unoffered" desktop anyway — the depth of modding skills one has to possess to actually do it is simply not the category system's concern. And again, even the total Linux newbie with no modding skills at all can still install Puppy+GNOME right out of the box, if the preexisting Puppy+GNOME mod that a hardcore modder has already made available for download from SourceForge is what the novice chooses to download and install. So Puppy is not defined by not officially offering GNOME, because you can still get Puppy with GNOME if you really want it regardless of the fact that it's not the official default. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I could find two of them, if you know more categories, please mentioned it:


 * Category:Operating systems using GNOME


 * Category:Operating systems using GPE

Editor-1 (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It could be useful if someone which has strong english, look at below page to maybe find a good reason:

Overcategorization

I can provide a good reason by relying on my mind:

The desktop environment, web browser and all other applications are a "product", those categories are instances, the concept of them is "the availability", and there is no wikipedia policy to allow a platform or something like that (operating system, store, supermarket, etc) categorized by the product it provides; this leads to highly mess.

Example:

Category:"X" that provides "Y" product (desktop environment, T-shirt, chocolate, etc)

The above example clearly shows why those categories are wrong. Editor-1 (talk) 17:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I can't make any sense of what you are trying to argue here. - Ahunt (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting with a rather strong admonishment to not bludgeon the discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, the text of the articles give the impression that this is not a defining characteristic, some articles even don't mention Xfce at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * There is also a section in the Xfce article wich listed products and distributions using Xfce:

Xfce

Editor-1 (talk) 09:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Optional features are rarely defining. This seems to come up in passing or not at all in the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-defining, one-off category. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:42, 29 November 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:Deceleration

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting deceleration


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, this is not a defining characteristic of the content of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, contains only two articles with no apparent connection (well, at least using utterly different definitions of deceleration). We have no main article, apart from its opposite, Acceleration. Sionk (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SMALLCAT and I agree that deceleration is not a defining characteristic for these two entries, and probably not in general, either. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 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:Locations of junction railway stations in Western Australia

 * 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 both parent categories. -- Tavix ( talk ) 16:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Locations of junction railway stations in Western Australia to Category:Junction railway stations in Western Australia
 * Nominator's rationale: The other of the two categories on Wikipedia that begin with "Locations of...". I don't see why we cannot simplify it by removing that phrase. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * creators rationale - some junctions are still junctions of existing lines, whereas some identified are no longer extant - location opts out of the currency and allows inclusion of both current 'live' junctions, and those long gone JarrahTree 05:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- We should categorise stations, not places that have or had stations (which fails WP:PERF, in my view). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to both parent categories, on the one hand per WP:SMALLCAT, on the other hand because we have no other Category:Locations of junction railway stations in foo or Category:Junction railway stations in foo anywhere in the world, and finally there is no good reason to keep "junction stations" apart from "junctions". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree creators response, marcocapelle's comments are convincing as to the change JarrahTree 09:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:Locations of Ukrainian Insurgent Army attacks on Poles

 * 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: convert to list, which I will start as a bare list at List of locations of Ukrainian Insurgent Army attacks in Poland; also purge of titles that are mere place names and rename the remainder (named "XX massacre" etc) to Category:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war crimes in Poland‎. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Locations of Ukrainian Insurgent Army attacks on Poles to Category:War crimes committed by Ukrainian Insurgent Army
 * Nominator's rationale: The current name for this is cumbersome and not fitting into our category structure. We don't have any location of attacks of Foo on Foo categories, AFAIK. The closest corresponding pl wiki article is pl:Kategoria:Zbrodnie oddziałów UPA, which contains only massacres of... articles (ex. Wiązownica massacre, whether we should remove it from articles about villages I am not sure, I'd leave it on them until individual massacres are stubbed). It can be situated as a child for categories in Category:World War II crimes, just like it is on pl wiki. If anyone has suggestions for a better name, do say so, but the current one is just not fitting well within English Wikipedia structure, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT Delete and listify. Nothing in the articles notes that they are the locations of the attacks describes in the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Restructure and purge -- Category:Ukrainian Insurgent Army attacks on Poles. I looked at three articles.  One was an article on a village, but most of the content was on the attack, so that it fits; another was an article specifically on an attack.  The third did not even mention the attack.  Also Listify -- A category on locations suffers from the same problem as performance categories: here the "performance" is being subject to an attack, or being a place where the Ukrainian Insurgent Army performed, which fails a performances by venue test.  A list could have two columns - one on the village and another on articles on the attacks, perhaps with others giving dates.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt rename to Category:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war crimes in Poland‎, similar to Category:Nazi war crimes in Poland‎. The fact that Poland had different territorial borders during WWII than nowadays (i.e. many of these locations are now in Ukraine) does not seem relevant for categorisation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 15 November 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:Symbols by color

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting symbols by color


 * Nominator's rationale: Completely immaterial to the symbol's content, prone to misuse (Invisible Pink Unicorn and Golden Arches are not symbols). Delete all the sub-categories as well. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Defense: (1) The category was created in good faith and I argue it enriches member articles and both supercategories with relevant hyperlinks. (2) Pertinence to "the symbol's content" (its meaning?) is not required; as Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia it does little harm to additionally gather articles together by their subjects' being symbols of X colour. (3) Deletion is a disproportionate response to the inclusion of articles one editor believes not to belong. (4) The sixth word of the Golden Arches article is "symbol"; the arches themselves have never been functional, even in the oldest McDonald's restaurants, according to Hess. You'll need to make a stronger case than this, sorry.  re/greg/ex ;{ mbox &#124; history } 14:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are some contexts where color has a semantic significance that leads to it being a defining characteristic for some symbols. Awareness ribbons are largely classified by color; see the navbox. A white flag would lose its meaning if it was not white. Nazi pink triangles and yellow badges are defined in part by their color. Mis-classifications can be handled through normal editing, but category seems reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This is appropriate as a container-only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 13 November 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.