The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename (matches other fictional planets cat names as well this way). Syrthiss 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to fall in line with other categories such as 'Category:DC Comics locations' waffle iron 20:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Syrthiss 13:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Only three article, parent category has only a few articles and discriptive enough name. Salix alba ( talk) 18:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename: To match its sibling categories under Category:Radio personalities by nationality — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Personalities covers everyone. Osomec 18:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I think there's a real and legitimate difference in language use — it genuinely seems that the term "presenters" is far more the norm in Europe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Bearcat 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Personally, I'd really prefer not to start introducing different English-language terminology depending on whether the category is European or American. That's opening Pandora's Box IMHO. Maybe in some cases it makes sense but in something as benign as radio presenters vs. radio personalities, I think it would be better to keep them consistent. Otherwise, you'll start seeing people creating separate categories for "Radio presenters by country" and "Radio personalities by country" when, essentially, we're talking about the same thing. More confusion that it's worth. — Wknight94 ( talk) 15:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 13:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Talk show hosts → Category:Television talk show hosts
• Category:American talk show hosts → Category:American television talk show hosts
• Category:German talk show hosts → Category:German television talk show hosts
• Category:Mexican talk show hosts → Category:Mexican television talk show hosts

These categories are for television talk show hosts, not radio. Their parent categories are X television personalities and everyone in the categories are television talk show hosts. Radio hosts have separate categories (under Category:Radio personalities by nationality).

• Rename all: per nom. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all: per nom. Sumahoy 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all: per nom. Note that the parent Category:Talk show hosts is full of radio hosts too. × Meegs 12:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 13:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

There is no such country as Suvadives. It dissolved in 1963. Poeple cant be from a non-existing country now.. can they? Oblivious 12:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• rename to Wikipedians from Suvadives. People born before 1963 are still alive and may like to list it as their place of birth. CG janitor 13:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: per CG janitor. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The country may no longer exist, but there continues to be a location called the Suvadives. The parent cat is called Category:Wikipedians by location, not Category:Wikipedians by country. Several other subcats do not refer to nation-states, but to supranational areas (e.g. Oceania) or to historic nations not currently states (e.g. Scotland). If this were not a user cat, we might debate whether a hierarchy based on countries should apply; however, it is a user cat and users should be able to name their location as they see fit and useful. Valiantis 03:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No Valiantis, there isnt a place called Suvadives. That page is pretty much misleading. A rewrite of the whole thing is being written by Fizan and can be located at User:Fizan/Suvadive_rewrite. Referece and source to be added to the this. Spend sometime reading this and you'll know what I mean. -- Oblivious 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Are you disputing that there is a location called Suvadives. My link goes to Atolls of the Suvadives, not United Suvadive Republic which is the article Fizan appears to be re-writing. Nowhere in the article you pointed me to is there any suggestion that there is no such location as the Suvadives and Fizan himself states it is a "geographical region" in his comments below. I suspect there may be POV issues on both sides here. As this is a user cat, the user can state his location, nationality etc. as anything he feels to be appropriate. Valiantis 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • The geographical region I was referring to is the part of the Maldives that used to be Suvadive territory, which I must stress again, does not exist by that name any more.-- Fizan 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename.Delete I'll go with Oblivious. Please understand that Suvadives is the former name given to a group of separatist islands (a geographical region) under the territory of the Maldives. It was soon claimed back and almost nobody within (and outside) the Maldives would relate to it by that name now. The name Suvadives is used only as a historical reference.-- Fizan 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Clearly there is at least one Wikipedian who relates to the name Suvadives. Valiantis 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I am not sure if we should assign a non-existant nation's name to an existing part of a country's territorial claim based just on one Wikipedian's reference.-- Fizan 11:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • "We" are not assigning anything to anywhere. The user considers himself Suvadivian, this is a user cat. I will happily support the deletion of cats for mainspace articles, but not this user cat. Valiantis 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • But thats what we'd be doing if the cat is kept. And oh, if a user "considers" himself a martian, would that user cat be appropriate despite the fact that the user's supposition is logically impossible? This user wishes to be Suvadivian in the same way when the name has been defunct for a little less than half a century now. Please note that the officially (and unofficially) recognized names for that part of the country is now Huvadhoo, Fuvahmulah and Addu which was restored immediately after its capitulation. -- Fizan 04:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is effectively an effort to edit the (sole) member's user page. If historical accuracy requires doing something, why not make it a subcat for Wikipedians in Maldives, which will keep the national cats in line with the present set of recognized states? Septentrionalis 21:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Worth noting that there are newly created Suvadives items at TFD, SFD and AFD, and that an article on the former briefly-independent nation was written - in the present tense. Looks like someone's pushing a big POV here. Grutness... wha? 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Pushing a POV, exactly. -- Oblivious 00:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • This would be a relevant issue if this were a cat for articles in the mainspace. However, it is a user cat. If the user considers himself a Suvadivian (?) then he is a Suvadivian. Valiantis 04:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I admit that I don't know much about Maldivian politics, but I worry about this, from the point of view of precedent. Maldivians may be quite happy with some of their citizens regarding themselves as Maldivian, but do we allow this and not "Rhodesians", say, or "Yugoslavian"? It could be a can of worms... Grutness... wha? 09:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Rhodesian and Yugoslavian would be wholly proper for user cats. They would not be proper for cats holding mainspace articles (except in an historical context). If someone were to choose to describe him/herself within the user hierarchy as "Rhodesian", for example, it would make his/her POV transparent, which seems to me to be an advantage. Valiantis 19:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • mmm. Good point. I still favour delete, but not as strongly as I did before. Grutness... wha? 23:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. non-existent country, Maldivia will have to do, as it will have to do for any other disappearing country (East Germany, etc.) -- Vizcarra 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per Vizcarra Bhoeble 12:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Category created by anon where they did not understand how to create an article on a redirect - moved material to redirect -- Paul foord 10:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy delete as user test. R adiant _>|< 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The category has not been used, I presume this to be that this is due to them being awarded from the United Kingdom instead. Delete -- Greaser 09:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Not useful. Osomec 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Definition is vague. This sort of category is open to abuse by people who want to use wikipedia for advertising - not saying that is the case here, but the principle applies nonetheless. Delete Honbicot 07:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete, do not use "contemporary" in cat titles. Cat by decade if you must. R adiant _>|< 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete: per nom. and Radiant. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, AFAIK being "contemporary" is not significant trait to categorise photographers. Pavel Vozenilek 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

All the other Northern Territory categories have a "the". ReeseM 06:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename ReeseM 06:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Honbicot 07:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename: per nom. — Wknight94 ( talk) 16:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This doesn't match the categories for other Australian cities such as Category:Sport in Sydney. Newcastle is not that large, so one category will be sufficient, but it should be called Category:Sport in Newcastle, New South Wales as that is a more comprehensive name. ReeseM 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename ReeseM 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Too small as it stands, but there are probably some sportsgrounds or something to add. Honbicot 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Convert to standard format for categories of buildings in line with the parent Category:Railway stations in India. Rename CalJW 05:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• rename per nom. Sumahoy 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Convert into Commonwealth English to match the parent Category:Transport in India. Rename CalJW 05:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename asap. ReeseM 06:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • May want to delay voting on this till the vote below on Category:Transport in England is completed. It could make more sense to rename Category:Transport in Chennai and Category:Transport in India. Don't know all of the background. So there may be a reason for this statying with transport. But if England is Transportation then it is likely that India should be also. Vegaswikian 06:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • England isn't "transportation". That discussion is about a totally different issue and of no relevance to this nomination. CalJW 06:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category needs a name that reveals where these churches are and what type of locations we are talking about. As it stands Category:Churches of Umbria would be a fair entry.

• Rename ReeseM 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 05:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Korske 19:47, 24 January 2006 (AEST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 13:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems to be a better choice, shorter and matches subcats. There are various versions in the parent that may need cleanup depending on how this vote goes. Vegaswikian 04:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose There are many "of Foo" categories for awards, and I prefer it. Honbicot 07:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per Honbicot. Militaries, wars, and military equipment are all 'of foo' according to naming convention policy (they were as close as I could get to military awards and decorations). Josh 23:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I was going to just speedy to fix the U.S., but I think this is a better and shorter title. Seems to match the other subcats at this level. Vegaswikian 04:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose There are many "of Foo" categories for awards, and I prefer it. But speedy the abbreviation. Honbicot 07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to avoid abbrev. R adiant _>|< 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename unlike the above nomination, this category is not a 'country' or 'nationality' based category, but instead the awards of a specific organization, using their proper name. As such, the nominated name is preferrable. Josh 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename: Fix to match other Banks of X categories. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I would support such renaming judging by the current category content. But where would the future articles about UA insurance companies and stock exchange go? Are there cats. for them? If not - rename to Finance in Ukraine or keep. Also, is "matching the other country categories" a WP rule? What if I was first to discover an all-encyclopedia mistake? Theoretically? Ukrained 16:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Future articles can go into future categories. It's extremely simple to create new categories in the future and usually just as simple to change the category relationship hierarchy in the future as well. There's no point creating categories for articles that don't exist yet. As far as matching other coutry categories, why would someone not want to do that? Is Ukraine set up differently than other countries somehow? If there's a large-scale mixup where now they're all wrong, someone does a large-scale {{ cfru}} to fix the problem. Still not too big a deal. At least we'll be able to find all of the problem categories since they're all in one place. If Ukraine's is off by itself for some reason, it might never get fixed. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as requested. ReeseM 05:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (withdrawn). Syrthiss 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

These are duplicate categories. CG janitor 02:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose No they are not duplicate categories. English is a subcat of British: England and the UK are not synonyms.-- Mais oui! 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep There are scores of these pairings. Honbicot 07:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I withdraw my request for merge per User:Mais oui! Someone may remove the tag unless my withdrawal is not propper procedure. CG janitor 12:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'd say just remove your {{ cfr}} tag and cross out this whole discussion (with <s>...</s>) and everyone will get the point. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge as per nom. Consider this a relisting of this by myself. I will add a proposal to also merge Category:Scottish Egyptologists to Category:British Egyptologists. True, this is not duplication, but it is unneccessary overcategorisation. It is appropriate to have separate Scottish and English cats where the relevant articles relate to the period prior to the Act of Union or where there are significant differences between the situation in Scotland and England, or for cultural categories about the culture of Scotland and England (etc). In other circumstances, categorisation should generally be by state - the United Kingdom, for which the associated nationality is British; this is the practice for other countries on Wikipedia. In the case of Egyptologists (it appears the capitalisation is correct), for example, Category:Belgian Egyptologists is not subcategorised into Category:Flemish Egyptologists and Category:Wallonian Egyptologists. The Scottishness or Englishness of the people in these cats was not a significant factor in their Egyptology and therefore the standard nationality hierarchy should remain. Valiantis 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • It's every bit as significant a factor as whether they were from the United States or Canada. If you say that nationality is an important factor (which we imply by there being splits of Egyptologists by nationality) then whether a person is Scottish or English is an important factor. (that's a Keep, BTW). Grutness... wha? 22:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • You appear to be missing my point. The legal nationality of people in both cats (that which is comparable to the United States or Canada) is British, not Scottish or English. There is no legal Scottish or English nationality. No-one has a Scottish or English passport etc. Valiantis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • and you are missing mine. Scottish, Welsh, Northerm Irish, and English are separate nationalities, exactly as Canadian and American are. The existence or otherwise of separate passports is irrelevant - AFAIK the Vatican City doesn't have passports either, but no-one would dispute that being a separate country. The parliament of Wales, for example, is the " National Assembly for Wales". Note the first word. It's not a state assembly or a regional assembly. Grutness... wha? 09:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The Vatican City is an independent state. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are not. QED. I understand exactly what you are saying; you state that as English (for example) is a separate cultural nationality then it should be acceptable to have cats by nationality for English Egyptologists. I too consider that English is a nationality, but it is not a legal nationality; no-one is a citizen of an independent state called England. As such being English (or Scottish or Welsh) is quite explicitly not like being American or Canadian (In fact being Canadian is very much like being British as many people with Canadian legal nationality consider themselves to be Quebecois rather than Canadian!). The basis of the whole cats by nationality hierarchy is founded on legal nationalities relating to independent states. Anything else is a recipe for inviting POV-pushing from every seccesionist on WP and counter POV-pushing from supranationalists. This is not a case of me arguing against England or Scotland or any kind of POV nonsense like that; it is simply trying to ensure a consistent standard for the categories by nationality hierarchy. Valiantis 19:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • OK, point taken (this is getting to be a habit!) In the case of the four nations that make up the UK, though, I think that a case could definitely be made for them being an exception to many rules, and they are frequently treated separately in Wikipedia. If there's to be consistency either way on how they are designated, I'd favour them being regarded as distinct nations. Grutness... wha? 00:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep I have played a role in getting inappropriate subject area English categories deleted, but it is not inappropriate to subdivide people between the different parts of the UK. Unlike many subject area categories for England this does not misrepresent the way things are organised in the real world, it simply makes an extra click necessary to reach the articles. That is a price worth paying as I would expect all the articles about English people to be in Category:English people. CalJW 08:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • How do you determine who is Scottish and who is English in the absence of any legal definition? Valiantis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep for reasons mentioned in reply to the other nomination above. Osomec 15:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was upmerge. Syrthiss 13:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Not well distinguished from Category:Words; confusingly named. I'd prefer to recat articles/subcat in "Words" or one of its other subcats, as appropriate. - dcljr ( talk) 01:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, not specific. R adiant _>|< 11:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into category:words. Unclear name. Osomec 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete ?????? Pavel Vozenilek 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Specific words as opposed to what? Generic ones? Upmerge. Bearcat 02:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.