Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 2

< February 1	February 3 >

February 2[edit]

Category:American people of Maronite descent[edit]

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) 00:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American people of Maronite descent to Category:American people of Lebanese descent (note: Category:People of Maronite descent will be empty if this category is deleted.)

Nominator's rationale: Maronites are a religious group. We do not sort by religious descent. User:Namiba 21:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both more descent categories per WP:OCEGRS; User:Carlossuarez46/Descent categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, while I appreciate your persistence, American people of Lebanese descent is a valid category as a well-known diaspora group in the United States. You may want to go back and re-read the policy if you feel otherwise.--User:Namiba 01:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, what are the boundaries of that diaspora group - is it present and discernable in people after two generations, three, five, ten, twenty; at what admixture? does one who has only one great-great-great grandmother of this descent part of the community? And if someone in that community adopts a baby with non-Maronite lineage and brings him or her up in the faith and culture, that person is categorically excluded because its "descent" is wrong? That, among others, is what make all these descent categories of no value and ghettoizing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with all other categories, the boundaries are the sources. Is the subject regularly described as having this descent? If not, then it should not be included. If so, then it should be included. That's the standard for all categories and I see no reason why descent categories should be different.--User:Namiba 16:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Purge then Merge — agree we should not categorize by religion, so somebody should nominate Category:American people of Lebanese-Jewish descent for deletion. Looking at the Maronites, some are very partial decendants. Just because a grandparent was a Maronite doesn't make them of notable descent. The one that I've met personally isn't even mentioned as a Maronite, so why categorize him as notably such? The Thomases were notably Roman Catholic, not Maronite.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Thomas's parents were immigrated Maronites, so that seems to be correct. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't categorize converts by their parent's religion. As the nominator noted: We do not sort by religious descent.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but the point is that he should still be included in the proposed merge to Category:American people of Lebanese descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge when an ethno-religious identify essentially only exists in one country such categories are unneccessary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Due to the Ottoman millet system, religious groups became endogamous, quasi-ethnicities, so that having categories for each millet is potentially appropriate. However, we should only be having such categories where the descent remains a notable characteristic, not where they are largely assimilated by the destination country. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would you objectively define that? If the person is best known as an author, in English, e.g., is that assimilation? I find the whole "assimilation" definition odd - I live it daily and maybe that's why I cannot accept a bright-line test for assimilation. Another difficulty of "descent" categories: I assume few in the UK are more "assimilated" than Prince Charles and his kids, but - assuming paternity is where its claimed to be - he's of various "descent": his dad was born Greek of Danish and German noble houses, his mom is descended from Alexandra of Denmark (wife of Edward VII), George I (Hanoveran), Sophia of Hanover (Dutch), a grand-daughter of James VI of Scotland, and Henry VII (Welsh), who descends from Catherine of Valois (French), etc. we don't pollute our biography of Prince Charles with these sorts of "descent" categories, rightly so. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: this is an excellent example, please add it to your descent page. We need to update EGRS.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was a fan of Tiny Tim (musician). I didnt know he had a Maronite grandfather, but I cant see how it made a difference to his career. Rathfelder (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It is true that Maronites are an ethno-religious group, but this pretty irrelevant in terms of descent. National descent is more relevant, when that is defining: a typical American would be considered himself a Maronite (their faith) and of Lebanese descent, not of Maronite descent. Also, Lebanese abroad that I know tend to present themselves pretty identically between Maronites and other Christian groups such as Greek-Catholics, you would have to know them very well, or be with them on the way to church, to notice the difference. Place Clichy (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this PhD dissertation about Maronite-American identity.--Prisencolin (talk) 03:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Iranian city councillors[edit]

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) 00:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Qazvin to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Qazvin
Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Qom to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Qom
Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Shiraz to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Shiraz
Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Tabriz to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Tabriz
Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Urmia to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Urmia
Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Varamin to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Varamin
Propose merging Category:Members of City Council of Yazd to Category:Iranian city councillors and Category:People from Yazd

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1-3 articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Now While these places would typically have had more than five councillors, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating later if any ever exceed expectations and get to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now. --Just N. (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German Jewish military personnel of World War I[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:German Jewish military personnel of World War I to Category:German military personnel of World War I

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. While there is a main page for the category, it isn't like these people served in World War II. Lettler^{hello • contribs} 17:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge, also to Category:German Jewish military personnel. If the whole tree of Category:Jewish military personnel is undesirable a much broader nomination is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a distinct topic. See [1][2][3][4][5] and so on. It's not as if antisemitism was invented during World War II.--User:Namiba 21:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; no difference shown between Jewish WWI military personnel of Germany and their Gentile counterparts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category is distinctly different from Category:German military personnel of World War I, a situation quite likely different from Jewish people serving in other countries armies, for obvious historical reasons. The Nazis attempted to suppress their contribution and service and they ultimately did not receive the same privileges their non-Jewish counterparts did. Even during WWI, Jewish members of the German Army could not become officers in the standing army, only in the reserve, just as an example for the argument no difference shown between Jewish WWI military personnel of Germany and their Gentile counterparts. Their has been a number of publications covering their history, see German Jewish military personnel of World War I for more info. The unique situation of the German Jewish military personnel of World War I is documented through reliable publications and their has been enough notable examples with their own article here to warrant a distinctive category. 23:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Calistemon (talk)
Dual Merge per Marcocapelle. I've fixed the nomination, not a rename, as the target has been around since 2007. Profiles of American Jews in WW1 doesn't really have much to do with Germans who fought for Germany. Half the main article is after WW1, probably should be renamed.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is anti-pandering to the Nazis. Wikipedia should not be engaged in such POV-pushing by categorization. In the actual context of WWI and in the context of Germany in 1914 this is not at all a defining intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- In the light of what happened to the Jews under Hitler, their WWI service needs to be retained as a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Im inclined to keep this. For many of these people their wartime service became significant in their later lives in a way which was very different from ethnic Germans.Rathfelder (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Their later life was very different from ethnic Germans indeed. But why would we intersect this with their earlier military service? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because they wanted to use it as a defence against anti-semitism- and some did so, with usually short term success. It is frequently featured in the articles. Rathfelder (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have read 10 articles just now of which only one used it as a 'defence' to prove patriotism so I am not convinced. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- there are plenty of categories like this all over wikipedia and it may be a valid point of research for someone in the future. It doesn't have to be viewed solely through the lens of WWII/Holocaust either, there are many other angles from which to engage with this topic. --Dan Carkner (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A list may then be a better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. If there was a Category:British Jewish military personnel of World War I or Category:Russian Jewish military personnel of World War I that would be discriminatory. If the reason for this category is subsequent Nazi persecution (which extended beyond Germany BTW) then this does not apply to everybody in the category: at least those who died in the War or before 1933 are not affected. Therefore the scope of such a category should be restricted to something like Category:German Jewish World War I veterans who suffered from Nazi persecution, or Category:German Jewish World War I veterans who died in the Holocaust (per sibling categories) or even drop "German" because the veteran vs. victim status is not a German specificity. Place Clichy (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A large majority of the articles are about people who survived at least until 1933 and were then persecuted, and that is the main point of the article. Very few were notable as German military personnel of World War I, and those are the ones who didnt survive WW1. Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Children of Catherine of Aragon[edit]

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) 23:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Children of Catherine of Aragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only two people will ever be in this category and they are both already in Category:Children of Henry VIII, which is the defining category. Catherine of Aragon didn't have any children by anyone else. DrKay (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Why would one parent be more defining than the other? Both have their own categories. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance is available at Wikipedia:Defining. DrKay (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having the articles with both parents is a matter of WP:OVERLAPCAT, by definition. This case at most leads to the question whether we should have "Children of" categories at all. With two notable parents, it is arbitrary to pick one parent for a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the line of succession to the monarchy flowed through Henry VIII's lawfully begotten heirs and Catherine of Aragon was just one of several instrumentalities of that line, being a child of Catherine is not what makes these folks notable - it is their (purported) father. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not need to start categorizing people by mother. Down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I am not sure that Category:Children of Henry VIII ought to exist, but it does; so we had better keep that, but one is enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic example of a small category which is not going to expand. PatGallacher (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rattachists[edit]

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) 23:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rattachists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SOCK: The category was created by ApolloCarmb, a sockpuppet of Apollo The Logician. Additionally, the scope of the category can be too broad and make it difficult to determine which people should be included in the category (what determines that a person is a rattachist or not), which is ripe for original research. NoonIcarus (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Rattachism is not an opinion but a political movement which was briefly prominent in the 1830s and 1840s and which has largely disappeared. It's no more subjective than Category:Walloon movement activists. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People in this category aren't specifically activists, nor are they specifically from the 1830s and 1840s. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT If these people were activists or revolutionaries or leaders of political parties trying to change the border with France, this would be defining. This is just people that held the opinion which is mentioned in passing. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there doesn't seem to be a political party of this type, so it's WP:OPINIONCAT; given WP's view that belonging to a party is defining it would, as RD indicates, likely be a keeper per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. --Just N. (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Burials at II Alley of Honor in Baku[edit]

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Burials at II Alley of Honor in Baku to Category:Burials at Alley of Honor

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories used for the same purpose. The article about the place is Alley of Honor. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete, the latter because the articles do not even mention the place of burial. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category appears to be based using an off Wikipedia list since the articles don't mention it at all. No objection to merger if that's accurate. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marcocapell. No objection to merger if that's accurate. --Just N. (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I have found one article, Mubariz Ibrahimov, which mentions this. It says, "Mubariz Ibrahimov was buried at the second Alley of Honors in Baku". So this suggests that the categories are distinct – that there is an Alley of Honor and a "second" Alley of Honor in Baku. So maybe the categories are not the same thing. But the users above are correct that this is not a mentioned characteristic in most of the articles, nor is there an article about the second Alley of Honor, so deletion might be more appropriate here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films scored by Aryan Ashik[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 17#Category:Films scored by Aryan Ashik

Category:Congolese male mixed martial artists[edit]

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) 23:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Congolese male mixed martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Appears to be redundant with the previously existing Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo male mixed martial artists Gjs238 (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the 4 articles in the recent creation Category:Congolese male mixed martial artists are also in the older and correctly named Category:Democratic Republic of the Congo male mixed martial artists. Oculi (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I checked that they are all from DRC, not the other Congo. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Spotify listeners[edit]

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Spotify listeners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Wikipedians. I don't think it really could promote collaboration in Wikipedia. If kept, needs to be renamed to include "Wikipedians". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not likely to aid collaboration in writing an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Dan Carkner (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this category was emptied around the time it was nominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can say as nominator that I didn't empty it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Australian law support structures[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: upmerge. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Upmerging Category:Australian law support structures to Category:Australian law

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING generally

No other country has a similar category and, while I'm open to unique English variations or legal structures for Australia, there is no Law support structure article to ground this category. At this point, the category is just adding a layer without navigational benefit. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background We previously upmerged a similar Christmas Island category right here but it wasn't under this one so I missed it. I dont' think there are any others. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, unintuitive way of diffusing. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but rename -- Christmas island is a small place, so that a decision on it is not a good precedent. This is not a well-named category. Most of the target is about the law on particular topics. This is about the arrangements for administering the law. Possibly Category:Australian legal administration or Category:Australian legal system. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This rename does not make things clearer, e.g. education and journals are still not a good fit. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very flexible about having a unique legal category structure for a country if there was a main article grounding what the inclusion criteria would be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. There is no reliable source as to what is a "law support structure". It is not a commonly used term in law. It does not appear in several law dictionaries that I checked, including an Australian one. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Elements Music Camp alumni[edit]

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) 23:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Elements Music Camp alumni

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC and WP:PERFCAT)

The Elements Music Camp is a five-day music camp in the Phillipines for aspiring singers. I'm sure this experince was defining for these promising young people for awhile but Wikipedia doesn't have articles on promising young people. By the time that they hit it big and become eligible for a Wikipedia article, this gets reduced to a sentence or two about their early career so it seems non-defining. The recipient are already listed right here in the intro to the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious case of ~~WP:OCAWARD~~ WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:PERFCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we allow some alumni categories but this is not one that meets the guidelines for definingness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:PERFCAT. --Just N. (talk) 18:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.