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. – FayenaticLondon 15:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category holds articles and subcategories related to both Immigration and Emigration. Also, the immigration to the host country is the emigration from the previous one. The direction will be reversed if expatriates return at a later point. While there are organizations concerned with one or the other, there are also organizations related to both aspects, so we need a comprehensive category first, before possibly subdividing it further. After the rename, the category should live in Category:Human migration. --PanchoS (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Changed "in foo" to "based in foo" to avoid ambiguity. --PanchoS (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the parent only. The two subcats have one article each, both on immigration. I suspect this is because organisations promoting emigration are rare. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge UK and US child categories to all of their respective parent cateegories. It merely hinders navigation when a category contains only one child category and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It is better to have more inclusive categories on international subjects. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename depending on the scope in some places these organizations will deal with just internal migrations, and most will at times deal with both internal and external migrations. Add to this that some people who get classed as "immigrants" really are internal migrant children and grandchildren of immigrants who still have linguistic differences among others from the destination country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2016 (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.
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Avenues(note: the articles about avenues in the top category are already in the streets or roads tree)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge/rename as I wonder whether avenues are so much different from streets that they deserve a separate category. I'd rather treat this as a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most for Different Reasons/Keep on Paris subcat An Avenue (landscape) in French is supposed to be a tree lined street but, based on many of the pictures with the articles, many of these aren't tree lined. And, in any case, this is English Wikipedia where Avenue is just another name for street. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Avenue (landscape) is a tree-lined street not only in French, but also in English. The term just has been excessively utilized as part of street names, but real avenues still do exist in English-speaking countries, and are usually identified as "avenues". See below. --PanchoS (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete There are places where avenues fit into the street grid in a particular way (e.g. DC and NYC) but even then it comes down to something of a shared name situation. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the whole. I think this has been discussed before, and that should be linked (I've done one above). Where are the Hungarian streets going to go now? Shouldn't you be proposing merges or renames where there is no "streets in Foo" category? Some countries observe these distinctions more than others. It wouldn't work for the UK, but then there's no UK category. Johnbod (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not checking. But I do not understand the question, since I am proposing to merge/rename (and then to delete the empty parents). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian articles took the word "út" translated that into English to "Avenues" and then this category took it to mean the French "avenue" even those the pictures of those streets don't have trees. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominated upmerge/rename won't go ahead, I find this an interesting second best option. In that case, I would expect we no longer need a breakdown by city. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose to that - it's a completely made-up term Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We also have a Avenue (landscape) article. The challenge here is that we're grouping English Wikipedia by a French term that also has a (more generic) English meaning. But it probably makes sense to keep Category:Avenues in Paris under some name based on that local context. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This reminds me of the "cities, towns, and villages" issues we had awhile back. See the following from street:
The word "street" is still sometimes used colloquially as a synonym for "road", for example in connection with the ancient Watling Street, but city residents and urban planners draw a crucial modern distinction: a road's main function is transportation, while streets facilitate public interaction.[1][2] Examples of streets include pedestrian streets, alleys, and city-centre streets too crowded for road vehicles to pass. Conversely, highways and motorways are types of roads, but few would refer to them as streets.
I think we all know and agree that the varied names of types of road may have specific definitions for urban planners and historians, but in many cases, the terms have become genericized (if I may borrow that term) to merely mean thoroughfares. I don't think this is an ENGVAR situation, more just that specialist terms are losing their distinction when used in the common vernacular.
Urban planning, and trees aside, I'm not seeing why all these shouldn't be categorised together. I look at Category:Parkways and the definition of parkway doesn't sound dissimilar to the definition of boulevard above. And boulevard even states that they are sometimes called avenues. If paris is unique (and I'm not sure that it should be singled out), how would that category be named that wouldn't cause a re-spawn of IWANTMINE for every other city out there?
Now coming back to the urban planning... Are we really suggesting categorising thoroughfares based upon if they have a row of trees growing alongside, or have a divider between the sides of the road? I understand that this can be a living art form, but it just begs for the facetious response: "What's next? categorising streets which have a rock at the corner of an intersection? Or even streets that have traffic lights? - jc37 08:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to the corresponding street categories. per my comments above. If no consensus for that, at least merge the avenue, boulevard, and parkway ones together. - jc37 08:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the corresponding street category and delete. I can't see that there's much use keeping these separate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:52, 10 June 2016 (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.
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 and restructure. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This requires a few changes, but I'm not sure which. Deletion may be a good step for now until it can be sorted out. First of all, whatever this is describing isn't a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for IE, so it needs renaming. But to what? What's the topic of the category supposed to be? IE Business School is sorted at the top. But Category:IE University is its subcat, and according to the business school article, IE University is the parent organization. IE seems to stand for Instituto de Empresa, but that redirects to the business school as a former name. Thoughts? BDD (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as explained by the previous two users. I totally agrre with them.--Banderas (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Fayenatic's suggestion. Tim! (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge to Category:IE University (or rename and reparent as subcat). It clearly should not be at the top of the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2016 (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:Ice hockey players of black African 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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 22:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost a C2D with Black players in ice hockey and List of black NHL players. While "black African" is more narrow than just "black", there's consensus that these lists would include any black people. And as a side note, there are very few ice hockey players who are of African descent but not black, or vice versa. BDD (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Fixed two links in the nominator's rationale. --PanchoS (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do Black ice hockey players play ice hockey differently than non-Black ice hockey players? Any reliable sources to prove that they do. If not, no basis for separation based on race (here, it's clearly race, not "ethnicity" as has been claimed for "African-Americans"). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I'm sympathetic to the deletion argument, but after looking at the sources in List of black NHL players, this does appear to be a "thing" that some writers take note of and even tabulate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:46, 12 February 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: We might want to make our categorization scheme in the food and beverage sector more consistent. "Food" is usually defined as not including drinks or beverages, unless focussing the mere nutritional aspect (then excluding water). Both culturally and economically, the two however remain distinct while closely related. I initially intended to further harmonize the terminology, but the subtle differences between the two widely adopted terms "Food and drink" vs. "Food and beverage" need further discussion. Still me proposal streamlines quite some category structures to some good common denominator, so they can be further developped without the ruptures and inconsistencies of the previously scattered and currently still incongruent categories. Note that I left out the individual by-location and possibly some by-year subcategories to be subsequently speedy renamed per WP:C2C.PanchoS (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this could be a great proposal. I previously built Category:Lists of food and drink festivals based on the precedent set by other categories, so I agree the parent category is confusing as is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earflaps (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the parent category should be named "food and beverage" or "food and drink" so as to capture both types of events under one umbrella. Some existing subcategories are still useful, how, such as Category:Wine festivals, Category:Beer festivals. I also believe that Category:Food and drink festivals by type should remain a subset of the parent, so as to highlight themed events such as for specific fruits, etc.Jllm06 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Side note that I've been trying to avoid container "type" categories for festivals as much as possible, except in cases like Category:Music festivals by genre, where there are just too many to not do so. But at the same time, the food types category does fit really nicely at the top of Category:Festivals by type page, which may make it easier for folks to see the food section right away. Earflaps (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REname but Could we standardise all on "food and drink", leaving out the longer beverage? Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to standardize on one or the other, but in a number of (more cultural) areas "Food and drinks" prevails, while in other (more technical) areas "Food and beverage" is clearly more common. We shouldn't try to do too much at once, otherwise we won't get a consensus at all. --PanchoS (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I approve. Prefer food and drink. I doubt that the distinction between drink and beverage, if there is one, holds good in most of the world. The OED defines beverage as drink. Rathfelder (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2016 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 13:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categorization schemes: How are "garden festivals" distinguished from "horticultural exhibitions"? How are "flower festivals" distinguished from "flower shows"? We can pick the more appropriate name, but either way these should be merged. Also, the per-country subcategories are clearly underpopulated and it is unlikely to change soon. In the latter case, no prejudice against recreation at a later point, though. --PanchoS (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the creator, Earflaps, as I co-nominated some subcategories. --PanchoS (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creator rationale - thanks for starting a discussion, good to clarify. I'm against merging myself - I would say a "horticulture exhibition" or "flower show" would be better categorized under trade show or trade fair than festival. Also, garden festivals are marketed as a distinct type of event by their organizers, much like flower shows versus flower festivals (Glasgow Garden Festival, International Garden Festival with 3,380,000 attendees, Lauderdale County Tomato Festival, National Garden Festival, Singapore Garden Festival). More appropriately, once the definitions are clarified I might recommend moving all of these categories into the parent category Category:Horticulture events, while retaining their identity as distinct children (for example, if a garden festival has a commercial flower exhibition as an element, the event would show up in several categories). Earflaps (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most or even the majority being similar, however, I don't see as a rationale to equate as the same thing. Most music events are concerts, but that doesn't mean all "concerts" and "music events" should be merged into one category. And I suspect a lot of "exhibition" organizers try and make their smallish events seem larger and more impressive by using the word festival (like how US rock concert organizers used to do in the 1960s and 70s), but even if the industry often blurs them together, I don't think we need to. Earflaps (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I don't see any logic in merging the country categories with the continent categories, even if underpopulated. The Category:Festivals in the United Kingdom gets more traffic than the Europe category, and since only a tiny amount of readers will ever click to the Europe page, it means that readers of the UK festival category won't be able to see the distinct "garden festivals" subcat. So, using that country as an example, none of those readers will realize that "Garden Festivals" were a massively important type of festival in the 80s and 90s in England and Scotland (just read the garden festivals page, the things were enormous). Earflaps (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't understand your question. None of my nominations has anything to do with Category:Festivals in the United Kingdom. Also, I'm proposing to dual-upmerge underpopulated per-country-categories, so your concern seems baseless. --PanchoS (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not baseless, misunderstood obviously. I was just using the UK as an example. My point is, the festival tree at large is filled with underpopulated categories - so to start chopping up the country components of random festivals willy nilly, just based on their small size, seems destructive with no purpose. Is the purpose really just to make the parent "garden festival" continent categories easier to scan or something? Because that's what the garden festivals list is for, to allow for easy scanning, while the category trees allow different topics to mesh and be more easily found by browsers, many of whom discover new topics through various country-related categories. Earflaps (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"destructive with no purpose"? No. Creating whole schemes of thousands of underpopulated WP:NARROWCATs in an already narrow field simply is a bad idea, impairing both maintenance and usage. WP:Non-diffusing subcategories are no solution to this fundamental problem. They further impede maintenance, and are therefore only used for special not necessarily defining characteristics, but not fur full-blown, all-embracing categorization schemes such as by-country schemes. --PanchoS (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Earflaps, the best way to avoid to proposed merge is to much better populate the nominated categories with appropriate articles. Please go ahead with this. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it seems as though National Garden Festival and each of its occurrences had little to do with horticulture and more to do with urban land re-purposing accompanied by a "fun fair" or "county fair" with rides and such...the land not left in "garden" or "horticultural" condition but rebuilt for housing or whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - Hort- in horticulture is merely a Latin derived word for garden. Certain festivals provided an excuse for regenerating derelict land. The fact at after the festival, the land may have been applied to other purposes is irrelevant. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added a definition - nom is right in that it gets confusing since the festivals always pick "horticulture show/exhibition" in their event name, but I think I may have ironed it out on the page - anyone care to glance at/perhaps improve? I tried to define a horticulture exhibit as an attraction or feature in this context, and a festival as a more umbrella event that can include multiple attractions at a time (like flower parade for example). Earflaps (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd realized I'd been using a UK garden festivals page as an example in this discussion when one hand't been created :/ - also just realized the garden festival country tree being incomplete was my fault, since I started it last year and never finished, even though there weren't many left to organize. If nom's suggestion goes through, I'll respect the decision for them all to be merged accordingly (assume bot makes that fast and easy to do? I'm clueless with bots). Earflaps (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The though of a reverse merge makes me a bit hesitant, since at least I don't think all horticultural exhibitions are necessarily festivals (more like trade shows, perhaps, often small-scale and commercial in nature, as compared to 'for entertainment.'). But at the same time, whether trade shows are considered festivals has been kind of up in the air these past few weeks, in several different contexts with no consensus. Maybe ironing that out would help in several issues (including on the inclusion of several "trade fair" categories in Category:Sports festivals). Earflaps (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but that's not really the issue. Let's first see if we can merge overlapping and indistinguishable categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Horticulture for gardens is nothing to do with agriculture. I can see some of you won't leave this alone before finding something to merge, so there is a better suggestion below. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leave all as they are There is a considerable difference between the two, though Garden festivals often include a Horticultural exhibition, and both categories should have a "see also" note. More ill-informed tinkering. Johnbod (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, a more sensible idea would have been merging Category:Flower shows into its parent Category:Horticultural exhibitions. All the ones of a size to be notable that I've ever been to cover plenty of other plants, up to trees, as much as the constraints of a temporary show allows, not to mention other stuff like tools and furniture, and the names are generally a poor guide to the contents, though several are called "flower and garden" shows. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda like this idea. Earflaps (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only because, as you point out above, there is no horticultural exhibition, though there should be. Maybe if people spent less time fiddling with categories and more time writing articles there would be. They are rather different, as people keep pointing out above. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2016 (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.
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:relisting on CFD log for May 21 as discussion is outdated and has no prospect of continuing any further in this venue. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this undercoverage or overly fine-grained categorization? Maybe both, but still, while there might be several fireworks festivals in every country (or not – we don't know), it seems unlikely we'd get these per-country categories sufficiently filled soon. So merge up for now without prejudice for recreation in the future, if much more articles exist. PanchoS (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Creator response: I can see PanchoS' logic in wanting to merge itty bitty country cats with the continent parents. My main argument against it would be that it would make the category less compatible with the country/continent-dependent structure of the larger festival tree. Also, in a few cases the fireworks festival cats are useful on the finegrained country level, especially in Asia, where the fireworks festivals can be ancient and historically notable - when I was trying to clean up the sloppier country pages, fireworks festivals were consistently being left without a home, or being clumped in with broader "cultural festivals," and this seems to have fixed the problem. I was hoping the country tree could be expanded significantly with large public [[New Year celebrations at some point. So perhaps a chance for the tree experiencing a growth spurt, if I (or someone) goes through and sifts through the folk traditions to find the ones like Chinese New Year that have large fireworks shows as a significant part of the entertainment. Earflaps (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not desirable to intersect all per-topic subcategorization levels with all per-location subcategorization levels. In the end, this will always lead to an artificially blown up tree of underpopulated categories. While much of your recent categorization efforts was really helpful – thanks for your contributions at this point! – in a number of your recent category creations you went to far in intersecting everything with everything. I'm afraid I have to nominate quite a few more of them, while trying to preserve the essence of your efforts rather than wielding the axe. --PanchoS (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks for the thanks :) I definitely understand the logic that not all categories should be dissected by location - I've avoided touching most festival topics for that reason, especially the small ones (I prefer all pages in a category on one page, myself). A few festival types, though, I consistently needed to have a home for, on almost every single country festival cats I encountered - "sports festivals," "food festivals," "arts festivals," and "religious festivals" needed fuller trees the most glaringly, as top-level, vaguely defined parent categories with a whole bunch of children, I guess. "Fireworks festival" was one of the few where I kept encountering them, but couldn't think of any sensible parent category, beyond "festivals" itself. I wouldn't object if there was a move to get rid of the fireworks country tree and move fireworks festivals as a child of "cultural festivals" (like how you can always move a "documentary film festival" to the right spot in "film festivals by country," even without the doc festivals organized by location)- just doesn't seem optimal, I guess. Earflaps (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wouldn't myself create a Foos-in-country category structure if there are only currently 1-2 articles for each country, but if someone has created such a structure I see little point in deleting it - especially in a case like this where (unlike some historical categories) we may get more articles and hence recreate the categories again. Categories like this have benefits (e.g. an article in the FF-in-China category is automatically in the FF-in-Asia category). DexDor(talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't nominate a category scheme for deletion if its underpopulation is primarily due to undercoverage. But while – as I said in the nomination – it is possible that several fireworks festivals exist in a number of countries, it isn't sure or even likely. We don't even have an article describing what a Fireworks festival is, but clearly it has to be a festival focussing on fireworks, not just culminating in one, as most festivals do. I therefore doubt, Category:Independence Day (United States) festivals can be counted as "fireworks festivals" but still I decided to keep the subcategories Category:Canadian fireworks festivals and Category:Fireworks festivals in the United States for now. Note that we also have Category:Fireworks shows. This is a blatant case of WP:NARROWCAT, and yes, it is harmful to have several of these. --PanchoS (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom seeks to eliminate a lot of small categories. The question is whether the categories are going to get better populated. If they are, we should keep them for now. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double merge per nomination, a very sensible proposal which will not lose any useful information. – FayenaticLondon 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Double merge, too little content for this topic to keep country categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure whether there's a consensus here for the categories that were proposed for deletion — and since the discussion is still open almost four months later and discussions that old rarely if ever attract new input, I suspect one isn't going to emerge here. Accordingly, I'm going to close this and submit it for relisting on a more contemporary date. However, since the Canadian category was proposed for renaming rather than outright deletion, and the proposed naming format was consistent with the appropriate naming convention for its siblings on both sides of the parentage tree, I went ahead with that. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 21 May 2016 (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.
