Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3



Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished between 1925 - 1931

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished between 1925 - 1931 to Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain merge target adapted 6 May, per discussion below
 * Propose merging Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Second Spanish Republic period to Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain
 * Propose merging Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished during the Spanish Civil War to Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles and it is a very short period to categorize destroyed landmarks in Spain by. Besides we do not even have a more general Category:Disestablishments in Spain between 1925 - 1931 or even Category:History of Spain between 1925 - 1931. Both articles are already in the tree of Category:Disestablishments in Spain by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename and broaden scope to, and upmerge the two nominations below to it. Alternatively, it could be broadened further to , with the landmarks also categorised in . Grutness... wha?   02:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Currently Category:Demolished buildings and structures is diffused by centuries, years, countries and a few cities, but there is no other intersection of period and country. If we would want to start that here, it would probably make more sense to create intersections by century, to keep in line with the existing century structure, rather than taking an odd period like 1925 - 1939. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some ptrecedent, in categories such as, , and , but for the most par I agree. The history of 20th-century Spain is messy, but grouping all the destructions into a single century category wouldn't be too unreasonable. Grutness... wha?   01:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've created the new merge target and adapted the nomination accordingly. Also I have merged the three discussion into one. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The usual tree is "buildings and Structures" not landmarks. Accordingly diffuse to appropriate subcategories of Category:Demolished buildings and structures.  The three under discussion only have one or two articles.  Unless they can be better populated they must go.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is also a "Landmarks" tree, though it's not as complete as the B&S one, so a double upmerge would be appropriate. Grutness... wha?   01:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think many of these articles qualify for landmarks. They are about buildings and structures for sure. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now Merge as nom -- These three categories contain a total of four articles, in contrast with 15 Francoist demolitions. If we wanted to (and there is scope to populate better), we might have a category for pre-Francoist Spain, but I doubt it is worth it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to although it is not very obvious from the current parenting, these categories form part of Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished by period. Does that affect your views? – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not affect my view at all, since the target Category:Buildings and structures demolished in the 20th century in Spain is still a subcat of Category:Destroyed landmarks in Spain demolished by period. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ditto, and for the same reasons. Grutness... wha?   08:41, 12 June 2018 (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:Women empowerment in Bangladesh

 * 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, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women empowerment in Bangladesh to Category:Women's rights in Bangladesh
 * Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT, without a particularly clear distinction from the parent. And even if this were to be kept, it would need to be renamed to for grammatical reasons. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2018 (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:Mayors of Daly City, California

 * 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, see here (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Mayors of Daly City, California to Category:Mayors of places in California and Category:People from Daly City, California
 * Nominator's rationale: Category with just four articles, of which three are up for AFD as not passing WP:NPOL — there's only one person here whose article definitely isn't going anywhere, and even his notability claim has more to do with passing NATHLETE for his sports career than NPOL as a mayor. Daly City is a "council-manager" city, which means the mayors are selected internally among the city councillors and serve ceremonially for a year, but have no actual executive authority. So it's not a city whose mayors pass NPOL just for being mayors per se — which means that there's no prospect of growth here. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose' pending the outcomes of the AFDs. Let's see how mnay articles are involved before making a decision. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We have an established consensus that five is the minimum number of mayors who have to already have articles before a dedicated "mayors of city" category is warranted. So even if all of the articles survive (which they won't) this is still a WP:SMALLCAT, with little to no prospect of crossing the bar as the city's mayors aren't inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your assertion that there is an "established consensus" as you describe.
 * And what's the hurry? Why not wait for the AfDs actual outcomes? -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, then you have a project ahead of you of going back through years of CFD discussions to overturn all the several hundred discussions on "Mayors of (City)" categories that were closed as deletes on exactly the basis I described. Consensus is established by the discussions that have actually happened on similar categories in the past, not by whether you personally choose to agree with those conclusions or not, and CFD has an extremely clear and unmistakable history of deleting "mayors of (city)" if the category population falls short of five, with very close to no examples of the contrary ever happening unless somebody got the population over five by rushing additional articles into place before the discussion closed. And "the hurry" is that because AFD closers do not routinely check the categories to see if they've been depopulated below the SMALLCAT threshold as part of the article deletion process, the category will get forgotten, and just linger indefinitely as a one-item category, if it doesn't get addressed concurrently with the article discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that many many small categories of mayors have been deleted. And I agree that in most cases that was the right thing to do. However I disagree with your assertion that this amounts to a consensus to impose a rigid mathematical formula which excludes the standard exceptions in WP:SMALLCAT and excludes editorial discretion. As you may recall, you and another pushed your rigid mathematical formula in a recent discussion of Category:Mayors of Herzliya and that closed as "no consensus". So yes, there is consensus that 5 is a good rule-of-thumb ... but no, there isn't a consensus that it is a bright line rule. As to the AfDs, how hard is it to make a note to watch their outcomes? -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Await outcome of AFDs. 4 articles is a little small for a category.  If all four survive, we need to think about this then.  If only 1 or 2 survive, merge as nom.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2018 (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.

Foo-built ships

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 05:55, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ships by town or city
 * Category:Aberdeen-built ships to Category:Ships built in Aberdeen


 * Category:Barrow-built ships to Category:Ships built in Barrow-in-Furness
 * Category:Blackwall Yard-built ships to Category:Ships built by the Blackwall Yard
 * Category:Bristol-built ships to Category:Ships built in Bristol
 * Category:Chatham-built ships to Category:Ships built in Chatham
 * Category:Chiswick-built ships to Category:Ships built in Chiswick
 * Category:Cubitt Town-built ships to Category:Ships built in Cubitt Town
 * Category:Dartmouth-built ships to Category:Ships built in Dartmouth
 * Category:Deptford-built ships to Category:Ships built in Deptford
 * Category:Dundee-built ships to Category:Ships built in Dundee
 * Category:Frindsbury-built ships to Category:Ships built in Frindsbury
 * Category:Goole-built ships to Category:Ships built in Goole
 * Category:Govan-built ships to Category:Ships built in Govan
 * Category:Gravesend-built ships to Category:Ships built in Gravesend
 * Category:Greenhithe-built ships to Category:Ships built in Greenhithe
 * Category:Greenwich-built ships to Category:Ships built in Greenwich
 * Category:Harwich-built ships to Category:Ships built in Harwich
 * Category:Hayle-built ships to Category:Ships built in Hayle
 * Category:Kingston upon Hull-built ships to Category:Ships built in Kingston upon Hull
 * Category:Leamouth-built ships to Category:Ships built in Leamouth
 * Category:Leith-built ships to Category:Ships built in Leith
 * Category:Limehouse-built ships to Category:Ships built in Limehouse
 * Category:Lowestoft-built ships to Category:Ships built in Lowestoft
 * Category:Lydney-built ships to Category:Ships built in Lydney
 * Category:Mersey-built ships to Category:Ships built in Merseyside
 * Category:Millwall-built ships to Category:Ships built in Millwall
 * Category:Mistley-built ships to Category:Ships built in Mistley
 * Category:Newhaven-built ships to Category:Ships built in Newhaven, East Sussex
 * Category:Northfleet-built ships to Category:Ships built in Northfleet
 * Category:Pembroke-built ships to Category:Ships built in Pembroke Dock
 * Category:Plymouth-built ships to Category:Ships built in Plymouth, Devon
 * Category:Poplar-built ships to Category:Ships built in Poplar
 * Category:Portsmouth-built ships to Category:Ships built in Portsmouth
 * Category:Ratcliff-built ships to Category:Ships built in Ratcliff
 * Category:Rochester-built ships to Category:Ships built in Rochester, Kent
 * Category:Rotherhithe-built ships to Category:Ships built in Rotherhithe
 * Category:Selby-built ships to Category:Ships built in Selby
 * Category:Sheerness-built ships to Category:Ships built in Sheerness
 * Category:Sittingbourne-built ships to Category:Ships built in Sittingbourne
 * Category:Southampton-built ships to Category:Ships built in Southampton
 * Category:Sunderland-built ships to Category:Ships built in Sunderland
 * Category:Wapping-built ships to Category:Ships built in Wapping
 * Category:Whitby-built ships to Category:Ships built in Whitby
 * Category:Woolwich-built ships to Category:Ships built in Woolwich


 * Ships by River
 * Category:Beaulieu-built ships to Category:Ships built on the Beaulieu River


 * Category:Blyth-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Blyth
 * Category:Clyde-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Clyde
 * Category:Exe-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Exe
 * Category:Hamble-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Hamble
 * Category:Humber-built ships to Category:Ships built on the Humber
 * Category:Medway-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Medway
 * Category:Tees-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Tees
 * Category:Thames-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Thames
 * Category:Tyne-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Tyne
 * Category:Wear-built ships to Category:Ships built on the River Wear


 * Nominator's ratioanle. The convention of Category:Ships by country of construction is "Ships built in Foo". The convention of Category:Ships by city of construction is also "Ships built in Foo".
 * I spotted 3 subcats of Category:Ships by city of construction named "Foo-built ships" and nominated them for speedy renaming. However I later noticed that while the 4 countries of the UK plus the English counties all use "Ships built in Foo" (see Category:Ships built in England by county: Category:Ships built in Devon &c) the convention for ships built in towns and cities of the United Kingdom is "Foo-built ships" (except Belfast, Glasgow, and London]). So there are 2 conventions, and hence my WP:C2C speedy nomination is obviously void.
 * I see no benefit to readers or editors in having two conventions, so this nomination will align the UK to the convention for the rest of the planet. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * PS When tagging the categories, I noticed that 11 of them relate to rivers. "Ships built in the River Foo" would be silly, so for those categories I have amended the rename target to "Ships built on the River Foo". -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as per nominator's rationale; no need to have two conventions for categories. In the article body, we can of course continue referring to the ships as "Clyde-built ships" etc. Tupsumato (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support -- This is an acceptable outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2018 (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:Fossils of Russia

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Fossils of Russia to Category:Extinct animals of Russia
 * Nominator's rationale: They are essentially the same category. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. Category:Fossils by country has 78 subcategories,. No reason is offered for singling out Russia. And fossils are not necessarily of extinct species. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator that the way it is now does not make sense, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I wonder if we can somehow agree to restrict the extinct animals to those animals which became extinct after prehistory. By just merging the categories, those animals will remain lost in the crowd of fossils. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per BHG's arguments. Grutness... wha?   03:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is a difference between recent extinctions and prehistoric distinctions and the categories should reflect that. WikiProject Palaeontology is devoted to prehistoric extinctions and WikiProject Extinction is devoted to recent extinctions. Plantdrew (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose but purge -- I would suggest we draw a line at the end of the last Ice Age, about 10,000 BC. If the extinction was earlier, it is a fossil; if later and extinct animal.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose 1) The category "extinct animals of ..." is reserved for animals that got extinct in historical times, so when we know they were alive but also have seen them disappear. Generally the 10,000 BP Holocene mark is a good boundary, as Peterkingiron says and Plantdrew and also Marcocapelle have noted. The category "prehistoric animals of ..." is for the pre-Holocene fossil record. 2) "Fossils of ..." may contain fossil animal species but also fossil plants, so are not "essentially the same category", a certain overlap is inevitable. 3) I have been working hard to rearrange and recategorize the "Prehistoric animals of ..." category into the deeper sections per period, e.g. "Triassic animals of ...", and even organize the articles further for animals that are restricted to a certain time period, e.g. "Trilobites of ..." for trilobites instead of "Paleozoic animals of ...". 4) Categories are essential and good tools to list all the elements of a certain group, in this case "Fossils" of a specific country, "Russia". If one wants to have a good overview of the different fossils found in Russia, it doesn't make sense to look under all the different subcategories of "Triassic animals of ...", "Prehistoric plants of ..." and "Cretaceous animals of ..." and try to get an overview on the fossils found in a country. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2018 (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:Plant biologists

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Plant biologists to Category:Botanists
 * Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, "plant biologist" is an apt description of what a "botanist" is... Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, everyone knows the similarity. At least everyone who knows what botany is. I'm curious as to why this went unnoticed for 1.8 years. – Laundry Pizza 03  ( d c&#x0304; ) 17:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Good catch! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2018 (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:Roman Catholic universities and colleges

 * 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. This results in an inconsistent position as the national sub-cats were renamed last year, see Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_10, which followed several others on the log page Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 12. I suggest someone re-nominates both sets together with options A (Catholic)/B (Roman Catholic), as one group or the other ought to be renamed to match. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges to Category:Catholic universities and colleges
 * Added on relisting:
 * Propose renaming Category:Former Roman Catholic universities and colleges to Category:Former Catholic universities and colleges
 * Propose renaming Category:Lists of Roman Catholic universities and colleges to Category:Lists of Catholic universities and colleges


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with main article Catholic higher education, as well as Category:Catholic schools, Category:Catholic teaching institutes, Category:Catholic Church, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes but do not rename any UK subcategory due to the "Anglo-Catholic" theme of the Anglican church. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not objecting to the change, but there should not be a consequential change to British categories, where the omission of "Roman" would be ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Too late! The national categories were already renamed last year, see Category:Catholic universities and colleges by country and discussion here. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Adding a sub-category to the nomination. These two seem to be isolated hold-outs, as their other parents and sub-categories have already been renamed without "Roman".
 * Oppose. Creates avoidable ambiguity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per ambiguity issue JarrahTree 11:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to maktch the article Catholic Church. In the discussion over that name the claims of so called ambiguity were rejected in favor of the very clear precedent and rules of common name. Those who seek to claim ambiguity ignore the reality of English usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we should have a centralized discussion on whether everything should drop the "Roman"; there are many categories retaining the "Roman" (e.g., Category:Roman Catholic media (and many of its daughter categories), Category:Roman Catholic art (and many of its daughter categories)); there is also apparently a category tree under Category:Eastern Catholicism which although in full communion with Rome, now, have a quite different liturgy, tradition, and history and apparently eschew the label of "Roman". And there is the category tree under the above-mentioned Category:Anglo-Catholicism, which apparently is not in full communion with Rome. Given the diversity of use of the term "Catholic"; this discussion should be centralized to harmonize the naming of articles and categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hasn't this discussion already taken place by discussing article Catholic Church? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * that article discussion would have resolved the issue if there was no ambiguity and WP:C2D could be used. But there is ambiguity, so as  says we need to resolve the issue of category names. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The article talk page is the only centralized place I can think of for a discussion like this - other than here. Substantively I don't agree with ambiguity in this case. Category:Eastern Catholicism is a subcategory of Category:Catholic Church; Category:Anglo-Catholicism is a subcategory of Category:Catholic denominations; there is no doubt that they belong in a lower level of the Category:Catholicism tree, neither would ever be used as an alternative designation of Catholicism. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A WP:RFC hosted at WT:CAT would be a centralized discussion esp if properly notified. As to the ambiguity, I find your explanation v odd. The ambiguity issue is not whether "Catholic" could be used an alternative name for those other denominations, but whether the term "Catholic" includes them or is restricted only to the Roman Catholic church. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In that respect I appreciate the distinction between Catholicism as a movement (religious and social) and Catholic Church as an institution within that movement. A category concerning the Catholic Church should have Catholic Church in the name, and otherwise it is part of the broader Catholic movement. For example in the tree of Category:Catholic organizations we have Category:Catholic Church organizations and also Category:Catholic political parties, the latter being part of the social movement but not part of the Catholic Church. Catholic universities also belong to the Catholic movement, they are usually not governed by the Catholic Church so the broader adjective Catholic is perfectly fine. I can't see what Roman would add here, as I've never heard anyone referring to the movement as Roman Catholicism while the narrower Catholic Church is unambiguous anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In the US, many of the "Catholic universities" are governed by organs of the Roman Catholic Church, typically various religious orders (Jesuits, the Congregation of Holy Cross, Religious of the Sacred Heart of Mary, Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange, and others). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * when it takes a whole para of complex reasoning about subtle distinctions and institutional structures to explain why there is no ambiguity ... then I think you have made the opposite point to what you intended. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 20:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Please note that proposals regarding the topic in a general way has been taken place at Proposed naming conventions (Catholic Church), and its talk page. So, in any case, what is your opinion on this above single issue? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you know any insitution that styles itself as a Catholic university in the United States which is not affiliated with the Catholic Church? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just taking part of a randomly picked article John Paul the Great Catholic University as an illustration with my italics: "JPCatholic emphasizes its loyalty to the Catholic Church, and lists impacting the culture for Christ as one of its main goals. The University was named one of North America's 21 Catholic colleges and universities which most faithfully live their Catholic identity...." This is all about Catholic identity and not about Catholic Church. Even if you declare yourself loyal to, it means you are not part of. The university is not part of the Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean but are you sure you're not misattributing a physical organisational bounderies definition that ultimately neither the Catholic Church nor its adherents are expected to do even themselves? Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose based on the debate above, it seems ambiguity is being needlessly injected into the category title and its scope by the proposed rename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * What ambiguity is there to you, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only the various uses of "catholic" as outlined above render the term ambiguous as an adjective, but the use of "catholic" as a an adjective meaning either affiliated with one of the "catholic" churches or just aligned with the university's view of what principles of the "catholic" faith, regardless of whether the university is affiliated with any of the churches using "catholic" in their name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, since the ones in opposition are in minority, you are asked for convincing examples, please, that could relativise the references to consistency in the above proposal. Could you name at least one university that self-styles as "Catholic" but has no affiliation with the Catholic Church, and where this is all unambigiously reflected as such in a Wikipedia article and/or category, please? Thank you! Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per the reasoning above, this change would add ambiguity. The Roman Catholic Church has always emphasized it's own belief that it is the only one 'true' catholic church. That is a WP:POV and wikipedia shouldn't be arbitrating that issue amongst religious beliefs. The use of Roman in these articles communicates more specifically the article, list and category content. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2018 (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:Films scored by Spanish composers
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 06:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting films scored by spanish composers


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT -- wooden superman  13:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Note that SMALLCAT specifically applies to categories "with no potential for growth". Spain still exists, as does the motion picture industry, so there is ample potential for growth. And since nomination, 15 subcats have been added. Grutness... wha?   03:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, conditonal withdrawl here, depending on what happens in the discussion below. -- wooden  superman  08:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness. Tijd-jp (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Grutness. Dimadick (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2018 (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.

Film scores by composer nationality
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Disclosure: I am closing this despite WP:INVOLVED as there is a clear consensus here, and no other admins appear to be active at CFD at the moment. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Film scores by Bangladeshi composer to Category:Films scored by Bangladeshi composers
 * Propose renaming Category:Film scores by Indian composer to Category:Films scored by Indian composers
 * Nominator's rationale: As the articles are the films and not the scores, category should take the format "Films scored by X composers", as per the subcategories and this discussion. However, do we even need to categorise by composer nationality?  Only these two and  and  exist.  No, , etc, etc.  -- wooden  superman  12:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename; we do have Category:Films by American directors etc, and there is no reason not to build this hierarchy too. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Except these are categories containing film articles, not soundtrack articles. If they were soundtrack articles, I'd be inclined to agree, but the soundtrack composer is not the creator of the film, which is what the subject of the article is.  Or rather, the nationality of the composer is irrelevant to the film article, but not to the soundtrack article.  -- wooden  superman  13:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair points. However, against the option of merging these to Category:Film scores by composer, they do form valid sub-categories of their other parents e.g. Category:Works by Bangladeshi people and Category:Bangladeshi compositions and recordings. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'm on the fence with this one. I guess that's why I nominated to rename with a question mark over the validity.  I certainly think this is a more valid hierarchy than the ones I've nominated for upmerging below.  -- wooden  superman  13:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename looks like these are sensible, well-populated categories. I see no reason for deletion. Grutness... wha?   03:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Also the parent category should be renamed? Tijd-jp (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's grammatically valid. All film scores are by composers - these are divided by composer. Grutness... wha?   01:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it means "Category:Film scores by composer" is preferred over "Category:Films scored by composer(s)". Tijd-jp (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support -- Most Bollywood films will be scored by an Indian composer. It is good to keep these separate from Hollywood films, largely with American composers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 6 May 2018 (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.

Film soundtracks by language
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. When I pinged Peterkingiron and Richhoncho, I was hoping that one might change his vote, leading to a consensus, but both withdrew their votes instead. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:14, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Tamil film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks
 * Propose merging Category:Hindi film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks
 * Propose merging Category:Malayalam film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks
 * Propose merging Category:Telugu film soundtracks to Category:Film soundtracks
 * Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise film soundtracks by the language of the film for other languages (e.g. ), so there is no reason for these. We do however categorise by nationality of the composer, see . -- wooden  superman  12:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm wrong, that's the soundtrack artist. Shouldn't we have a  though?  -- wooden  superman  13:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: these do form valid sub-categories of their other parents Category:Tamil music, Category:Hindi music and Category:Malayalam music. There is not yet a Category:Telugu music but it could be created to hold Category:Telugu-language songs and Category:Telugu playback singers. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- The language used in the film dialogue is probably one of its most defining characteristics. I am not sure whether we need a separate "soundtracks" tree, but if we do Category:Soundtracks of Tamil films would certainly be an appropriate category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The soundtracks are not about the dialogue, but the music. I really don't think this soundtrack tree is beneficial.  -- wooden  superman  11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * given the above reply, do you still oppose the merge? – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I misunderstood and am not an expert here. However, if the soundtrack is purely instrumental, its language should be irrelevant, but if it involves song, language is surely highly relevant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose Bringing all them under one umbrella is going to be a huge mess, especially for Indian films where there are minimum dozen of languages and more than 200 films produced in a year. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are hundreds of other languages and they all sit quote happily together in without "a huge mess".  -- wooden  superman  11:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Does somebody want to explain to me why, for instance, we need Category:Hindi-language films and Category:Hindi film soundtracks? Surely there is almost 100% crossover? Until that is explained to me I am in favour of merge --Richhoncho (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have struck my comment on the grounds that Category:French-language soundtracks exists, I am not sure whether this means there is a WP style these cats are not following. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good find! Adding these, there are now 10 language categories (plus instrumentals) in Category:Soundtracks by language. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * look at the contents; the soundtrack articles are all specifically about albums, not films. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:04, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * are you still in favour of merging? – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The proposed target is an overpopulated category for which some kind of diffusion might be helpful. Perhaps merge the nominated categories to Category:Soundtracks of Indian films? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Left a request for closure at the admin noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 5 July 2018 (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.

A. R. Rahman soundtracks
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, also to parents Category:Tamil film soundtracks and Category:Hindi film soundtracks where applicable. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:28, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Tamil film soundtracks by A. R. Rahman to Category:A. R. Rahman soundtracks
 * Propose merging Category:Hindi film soundtracks by A. R. Rahman to Category:A. R. Rahman soundtracks
 * Propose merging Category:English film soundtracks by A. R. Rahman to Category:A. R. Rahman soundtracks
 * Nominator's rationale: We do not need to separate soundtracks by the language of the film. We don't do this for anyone else.  -- wooden  superman  12:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: if these categories are not kept, two of them also need to be upmerged to the other parents Category:Tamil film soundtracks and Category:Hindi film soundtracks, unless those are also deleted per the discussion above. On the other hand, if they are not merged, then the last one should be renamed as "English-language..." for clarity. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom as these are very narrow intersections. Also agree with Fayenatic london's comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 11 May 2018 (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.

Film scores by A. R. Rahman
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Disclosure: I am closing this despite WP:INVOLVED as (i) there is consensus here apart from the category's creator, and there are adequate replies to his objections; and (ii) no other admins seem to be active at CFD at the moment, leaving a 2-month backlog. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Tamil film scores by A. R. Rahman to Category:Films scored by A. R. Rahman
 * Propose merging Category:Hindi film scores by A. R. Rahman to Category:Films scored by A. R. Rahman
 * Propose merging Category:English film scores by A. R. Rahman to Category:Films scored by A. R. Rahman
 * Propose merging Category:Kannada film scores by A. R. Rahman to Category:Films scored by A. R. Rahman
 * Propose merging Category:Telugu film scores by A. R. Rahman to Category:Films scored by A. R. Rahman
 * Propose merging Category:Malayalam film scores by A. R. Rahman to Category:Films scored by A. R. Rahman
 * Nominator's rationale: Categories for composers of films' scores should take the format "Films scored by X" (per this discussion), and categories for articles about soundtracks should take the format "X soundtracks", so firstly these are wrongly named.  However, there is no need to separate the films by language.  We don't do this for any other composer,, etc...  -- wooden  superman  11:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The nominator is incorrect to state that ; I count 26 within Category:Film scores by Indian composer. The total number of films scored by this composer is large, so there is no harm in sub-dividing it, so rename instead to Category:Tamil films scored by A. R. Rahman, etc. In the case of English this had better be Category:English-language films scored by A. R. Rahman to specify language rather than nationality. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:18, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'd missed those. It's still a bad idea.  As far as size goes, the number is much smaller than .  Do you really think we should be breaking that down into subcategories by film language too?  It's a bizarre subdivision quite frankly.  -- wooden  superman  13:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge per nomination. The contribution by A. R. Rahman remains music, NOT words, national or cultural identity. It is a disservice to the works of A R Rahman to separate that way. This !vote applies to any other separated in a similar way. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge per the excellent points from Richhoncho above. VasuVR  ( talk,  contribs ) 09:06, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename "We don't do this for any other composer" is a bad rational. If its needed, it should be done on the need basis. India is the country with multiple languages and Indian composers often compose in varied languages. The films mainly consists of the songs in the specific language unlike Hollywood movies where the Original Score has more significance.The total number of films scored by composer is significant here. I think renaming them as per Fayenatic's proposal is the best idea. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 10:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * . You are correct India is a large country with multiple languages and films have been split up accordingly (including dubbed from one language to another). That is great but we are not discussing that here, we are discussing whether a composer (i.e. the music man) should have his works artificially separated because on the language spoken in the film. This is no benefit to people interested in the works of A R Rahman, in fact it diminishes Rahman's work. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rahman's work has been majorly identified for his language specific songs. A quick look at some of the jukeboxes uploaded by some official channels like T-Series, Saregama Tamil, Venus would give you an idea as how he is been identified in India. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 04:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's an argument to separate according to lyricist. Not composer. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the lyricists' work in a single language and not multiple like composers. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 10:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural comment, discussion was closed as no consensus but re-openend after this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, when this has been reopened after the discussion on the talk page of the non-admin, we would need an absolute consensus to have this moved, with more than 7-10 votes at least in favour. Unless, it would not be a fair deal. Let more people get involved and opine with clear opinion. - <span style="color:#808080;font-size:15px;font-family:'Georgia, serif';font-style: italic;font-weight: bold;">Vivvt ( Talk ) 07:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

--Richhoncho (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral: Do whatever you can to avoid overcategorisation. <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  03:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comments, I have already made a comment, but I thought I should follow up my previous delete with more comments:
 * 1) A big shout out to Marcocapelle who has shown he is a fine editor by reconsidering his own decisions.
 * 2) An electronic slap on the wrist to Vivvt for not acknowledging he created the sub-categories being discussed were created by him.
 * 3) All the subdivided ‘Films scored by’ that have been separated like this have been done by Vivvt and nobody else, and all done within the past few months.
 * 4) This suggests that there is no substantive WP support for the creation of these sub-cats.
 * 5) Arguments about the size of the category should not be considered, Category:Films scored by Ennio Morricone is not split by language of film although he has scored about twice as many film as Rahman.
 * 6) The very valid point made by Vivvt above that, “Most of the lyricists' work in a single language and not multiple like composers” confirms composers work in music not languages. By that alone we have proof that this overcategorization.
 * 7) There have been no substantive arguments for retaining the existing titling, size is not relevant, the language spoken in a film does not affect the music or the composer one iota. Why would anybody actually need such a category?
 * 8) The language of love (music) is a communication over and above the more usual forms of communication.
 * 9) There are already categories for Films by language, so anybody looking for films by language are already catered for.
 * Note that the primary reason for re-opening the discussion is to get a clearer consensus on renaming while consensus on merging is lacking. User:Woodensuperman suggested that in the previously quoted discussion that merge votes should also be read as a preference for renaming over doing nothing. do you agree on that? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Although the nom is says rename, it is technically a merge. At the moment the nom, 2 !votes, and a further "avoid overcategorisation" support the nom. That leaves the creator and Fayenatic (who may wish to comment again) against the merge/rename. So, yes, I do agree with User:Woodensuperman, but happy for further discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Normally I would suggest re-listing, expanding the nomination to include all composers whose film scores are subdivided by language. However, it does appear that all those categories were created by user:Vivvt, who has participated in this discussion, so no further notification is necessary. I have therefore struck my !vote. On closer examination, the 26 sub-divided categories that I mentioned above are not all divided by language; some are divided by decade, so they would need a separate discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple merges for decade splits at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 21. -- wooden  superman  12:18, 21 May 2018 (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:Anti-corruption non-governmental organizations
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Anti-corruption non-governmental organizations to Category:Anti-corruption organizations
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with our treatment of other NGO categories. Category:Anti-corruption agencies can then become a subcategory of this. Rathfelder (talk) 09:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The distinction between state-backed anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption non-governmental organizations is an important one which should be retained. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nominator does not propose to merge or move anything, so the articles in this category will stay together as a category, while Category:Anti-corruption agencies will stay another category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of the distinction will be lost. State anti-corruption agencies are a type of anti-corruption organization, but they are not a type of anti-corruption non-governmental organization. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Rathfelder - can you link to the relevant discussion(s) re NGO categories that you allude to in the nom? DexDor(talk) 20:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the earlier discussion: Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 5. The decision was to remove the geographical NGO categories. There was an earlier decision: Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 14 to merge/rename subject based NGO categories. but to  "Keep a number of possibly more controversial subcategories for now."    I entirely agree that the distinction between state-backed anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption non-governmental organizations is important and should be retained, and that is what I intend.  In fact this way puts the government agencies in one place and the non-government organisations in a different one. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose This needs to be a wider nomination dealing with Category:Non-governmental organizations. I don't really see how the above linked discussions and the nominator's rationale can be treated as uncontested if we continue to maintain that category. I find it hard to make an assessment when it's unclear to me if there is a separate reason to maintain the parent category but not topical subcategories. SFB 23:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree with the procedural oppose. I'm only looking at the previous discussions right now and it is really odd that big parts of the tree have been deleted two years ago but the remnants of the tree including its top category still exist. We should make an explicit decision whether or not to cut the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A negative definition for organisations is pretty unhelpful. Most organisations are non-governmental.  The term works within the context in which it was produced - which was international development.  But it has been agreed, twice, that it is unsuitable as a category for individual organisations by subject or by country, I take it because it is impossible to say that any organisation other than government agencies, don't belong in it. This leaves a miscellaneous collection of sub-categories, four of which relate to conflicts in the Middle East.  I don't know if these are helpful.  Meanwhile, if we don't do something to stop it, the main category is filling up with articles about individual organisations.  Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Which confirms that the discussion should primarily focus on the main category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2018 (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.