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 (article was also deleted). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Ksysenka ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Misused Category namespace. Please let it die fast and painlessly. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksysenka. Netrat ( talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Removed text copied from the included article from the category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The AfD should have been completed before the CfD was nominated. Closing admin should wait for result of AfD first. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Why? As a single entry category it is over categorization. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Categories can have single entries if appropriate, though I'm not saying that this one is appropriate. An AfD result can have a bearing on the CfD decision but not vice-versa. Therefore I think AfD should be completed first and, if the article is deleted, then by all means delete the category immediately. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Obvious Delete (am I missing something here??) - Regardless of the outcome of the AFD, why would the article require its own category? Cgingold ( talk) 11:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete No need to wait for Afd here. Johnbod ( talk) 16:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Definite WP:OCAT, it doesn't matter if the article is deleted or not. Bsimmons666 ( talk) ^Friend? 02:00, 10 November 2008 (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: Discussion closed; use Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 5#Category:American people of Muslim descent instead. Apparently this discussion was created by mistake while a previous discussion was still going on. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:American people of Muslim descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Commenter’s Rationale: Unique Category Namespace. This category should not only remain, but also be cultivated not just for Islam, but all faiths.. . For example, there is a huge distinction between Americans of Muslim descent and American Muslims. Current event case in point - Barak Obama, of Islamic/Muslim descent, but not Muslim. As opposed to Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali - an American Muslim. There are many people who can fit into the former category and I believe it’s an interesting piece of information that may explain future choices these individuals make based on their favorable, unfavorable or neutral experience with that faith. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.91.209 ( talk • contribs)

• Delete -- I thought we had just had a discussion on this. We have categories of this kind accordng to ethnicity, not religion. We do not have categories for people of Christian descent, because it would apply to far too many people. It would be legitimate to categorise Barak Obama as of Kenyan descent, but having a Muslim parent would (as with Christian) apply to far too many people to make it a ueful category. It might conceivably be legitiamte to have a category for Non-Muslim Americans of Muslim descent, but I would recommend against it, as Muslim doctrine treats such people as apostates from Islam, and thus as people whom sharia law allows to be killed as pleasing to Allah. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:00, 9 November 2008 (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: delete. Per the discussion, this closure doesn't proscribe re-creation under a different, less ambiguous name. While Alansohn is correct that a rename would be an ideal solution, here there's no consensus for what the new name would be, and sometimes it's simpler to just start from scratch. Given the problems outlined with this category, I think that approach would be more appropriate to closing this as "no consensus" and letting the name stand. I can assist in identifying the articles that were in the category, if necessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Seduction theorists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - seduction theory does not have anything to do with picking up women. Thus, the inclusion criteria for this category are entirely subjective as they have no basis in fact and the category (populated with an odd combination of philosophers and barely if not flat out non-notable sleazes excuse me, pick-up artists) is misleading. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. The usage of it here is clear and has nothing to do with Freud, if you look back through the history you can see this (for instance Neil Strauss has been there from the beginning). Also it is a sub-category of Seduction, just to make this point even clearer. Mathmo ^Talk 03:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I note that there are no Google hits, either web, news or book, to reliable sources that use the phrase "seduction theorist" to mean "men who teach other men to pick up women". Since Wikipedia is not for things made up one day using the phrase in this manner is inappropriate original research. Otto4711 ( talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep/Consider Rename A clear grouping by a strong defining characteristic, justifying retention. The nominator raises a possible issue that the title of the category is inaccurate, which would be a rather useful argument for renaming the category, but a poor one for deletion. Alansohn ( talk) 05:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If Neil Strauss wants publicity by hijacking an already accepted term, he ought to go elsewhere. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • this has nothing to do with Neil Strauss specifically (other than being one of the people in the category). Mathmo ^Talk 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It is irrelevant to seduction theory per nom. To answer Alansohn, I think a rename would be inappropriate because there is no clear binding factor, which is probably why the current name was chosen: i.e., as a very bad guess! --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 09:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Rename to ??? Category:Pickup artist theorists? Category:Pickup art theorists? Category:Pickup theorists? Category:Seduction practitioner theorists? Expand to include books and websites, and rename to Category:Seduction community? Cateogry:sleeze theorists? (Thanks, Otto.) Appropriate category, bad name. In any case, it should have {{ catmain|Pickup artist}} rather than the otherwise possible {{ catmain|Seduction community}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Seduction community members would be my first suggestion that comes to mind, as it will limit it to just people. Mathmo ^Talk 05:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • There seemed to be a desire for the category to include those with theories (or, at least, publications and/or seminars), rather than including (hypothetically) notable members who are not theorists, or in, perhaps a clearly violation of WP:OCAT, notable people who are members, but that fact not being notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • There are pick up artists who are not theorists about it, but you wouldn't be able to name a single pick up artist who is notable and who hasn't also theorized over this as well (due to the fact they tend to become notable exactly because of their theories). So I don't see what the problem here is? As the category seduction theorists as it was intended is an exact match with the (notable) members of the seduction community proposed category. Mathmo ^Talk 10:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per BlackJack. Somehow the fact that some of the disambiguation terms used are {pickup artists) leads me to think that there is an issue with the category name. If not ambiguous it is at best unclear. Recreation with a new name and a main article should be allowed. Even the alternate names proposed by Arthur Rubin might work if the category is recreated. However. it is not clear that this applies to everyone in the category which is why I support delete over a rename. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:47, 14 November 2008 (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: Delete. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:1971-72 South African cricket season ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty and redundant category. All of its former articles were recently deleted due to lack of verifiable sources. I cannot see that WP:CRIC will ever want to repopulate it as its parent category is designed to hold all articles about South African domestic cricket. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 19:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No need to keep an empty category - not to mention there's already 1971 in cricket and 1972 in cricket. Bsimmons666 ( talk) ^Friend? 02:02, 10 November 2008 (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: Delete. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Films with open endings leaving the audience to draw their own conclusions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - perhaps the most perfect example of a category requiring original research that I've seen. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, total OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Drawing your own conclusion is not so much WP:OR as WP:POV. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Per WP:OR. Lugnuts ( talk) 09:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, since almost every film I've ever seen has left me wondering what happens next. bd2412 T 07:57, 11 November 2008 (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.

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. Consensus can and does change. The previous discussion was closed as no consensus. The keep logic was membership in a category that is a collection point for categories that would not otherwise have a parent category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Rick Astley ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous singer category. Holds only his albums, songs, and Rickrolling. Too narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - per nom, extensive precedent and WP:OC#SMALL. Otto4711 ( talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This category has several dozen articles in its subcategories, hardly anyone's definition of small. The Category:Rick Astley albums is a subcategory of Category:Adult contemporary albums, Category:Albums by artist, Category:British pop albums, Category:Dance-pop albums and Category:English albums, while Category:Rick Astley songs is a child of Category:British pop songs, Category:English songs, Category:Songs by artist. Both the albums and songs categories have Category:Rick Astley as a parent. Deleting the parent simply places these categories and all of the articles in the parent into a limbo with no interconnection via the category structure. As deletion will simply make navigation more complicated -- if not impossible -- there is no justifiable argument presented for deletion. Besides, the Family Guy episode Meet the Quagmires should be included here, as well. Alansohn ( talk) 05:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• The argument that the contents of a subcat are somehow directly categorized in the parents is a bit tiresome. The argument that deleting this eponymous parent will prevent anyone interested in Rick Astley songs or albums from finding them in nonsensical since anyone interested in them is probably going to start at Rick Astley. The notion that an episode of a TV series should be categorized under a real-life person because the person is referred to or even somewhat featured runs counter to any number of CFD decisions. Otto4711 ( talk) 06:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I really don't care in the least bit about what you find "tiresome", nor does anyone else. The focus needs to be on addressing the fundamental issue, which is user navigation using categories. While the TV episode was a joke you obviously didn't get, the absence of a parent category is a direct obstruction to navigation for anyone using the category system for to get to his song or album categories from the other. Deleting the parent not only provides no way to organize the non-song articles that are specifically relevant to him, but it places a direct roadblock to navigation. Alansohn ( talk) 16:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• If you're going to tell jokes, could you try to make them, you know, funny? Could you also indicate which articles related to Rick Astley that aren't either songs or albums are not easily accessible through Astley's article? There are currently a whopping total of two such articles, his discography article and the rickrolling article, both of which are prominently linked in his main article. Otto4711 ( talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Rick Astley should be included as main article (piping *) in both Category:Rick Astley albums and Category:Rick Astley songs. Cannot see the point of a category about him personally as it creates an unnecessary layer between his works and the generic works categories. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Probable Delete - I've argued for retention of a number of eponymous musician categories on a case-by-case basis, but I think this one can be dispensed with. Unless I've overlooked something, there are only three "loose" articles -- one of them is the bio article, and the other two are very prominently linked from that one. (As far as I can see, the Family Guy episode is simply a passing reference, too trivial for categorization, imo.) Cgingold ( talk) 10:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment - In all cases like this where there are two closely related sub-categories, but not enough contents to warrant having a super-category, the sub-cats should be linked to one another horizontally (using {{ CatRel}}). This should be standard practice, imo. Cgingold ( talk) 11:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete per BlackJack - already fits categories. Bsimmons666 ( talk) ^Friend? 02:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It may not be terribly relevant, but note that this is a second nomination; the first was on 2008 APRIL 7. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 10 November 2008 (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: Delete. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Novels by Eric M. Norcross ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category for an author without his own article, whose sole listing is up for deletion at AFD. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 09:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• delete About to be empty. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep How can you assume the article will be deleted asshole? This site fucking sucks! Amelia Nymph ( talk) 18:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Please avoid personal attack. It is not the site that sucks you have to first know the policy that exist in Wikipedia. It is the policy that sucks :P. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• delete this category. no article on the author, no established notabilty, no apparent notability, no notability for the one book listed (which is currently under review for deletion). Bali ultimate ( talk) 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete non-notable author of a single nn self-published book. RayAYang ( talk) 05:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Point of order. In my opinion this nomination is premature. The article is at AfD and the CfD nomination should have been withheld until the AfD process is complete. If the article is kept and then an article about the author is added, then there will be no justification for deleting the category. I would ask the closing admin to wait until the AfD completes before taking action here. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• WP is not a bureaucracy: the sole listing in the category is well on its way to deletion, and always was. But even in the extraordinarily unlikely event of a 'Keep' outcome, the category ought to be deleted because it would have only one (1) possible entry. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• No one said it is a bureaucracy but these pages are forums for discussion and there is no inevitability about the outcome of any discussion until it is closed. Kindly bear that in mind. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 17:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Whether you have explicitly stated that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy matters not, as you've certainly implied it as such by your elevation of bureaucratic process over common sense and an inevitable conclusion. Kindly keep that in mind. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 07:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would expect anyone using this forum to have the common sense to realise that it is a discussion process and is not designed to rubberstamp an "inevitable conclusion" . No one can know that an article "is on its way to deletion and always was", per your rather arrogant assumption. The correct and fair way to deal with this category is to await the outcome of the AfD discussion per Johnbod's request below. If your habitual response to even a mild disagreement is to invoke terms like "bureaucracy" and "common sense", then I suggest that you read WP:CIVIL. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Wrong. There are many precedents that these are one of the types of categories where one entry is enough, on the "part of wider scheme" exception. Johnbod ( talk) 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Permit me to doubt the factuality--or applicability--of that declaration. -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 07:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sure. The closer will know I'm right. Johnbod ( talk) 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Hold for AfD result & delete if empty Johnbod ( talk) 14:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• BlackJack is right. Premature to nix the category before the AfD is concluded. If it is so obviously headed in that direction, then the worst case scenario is waiting an extra few days before deleting the category, which is utterly harmless in the interim. Hold for AfD result & delete if empty per Johnbod. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• speedy delete now. The article on his self-published book was deleted. There is now nothing to put in this category. Bali ultimate ( talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Racially motivated violence against African Americans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category as defined is essentially a catch-all with ambiguous criteria. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep - The head note should be rewritten, but this is a valid sub-category of Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States (as well as Category:African American history, which I just added as a second parent cat). Cgingold ( talk) 07:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• keep The criteria is clear; many articles and subcats need to be added so it is fully populated. This will allow its parent Category:Racially motivated violence in the United States to contain many fewer and easier to find entries--those not concerning African Americans. Hmains ( talk) 20:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I had no trouble understanding the inclusion criteria. Alansohn ( talk) 05:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Makes sense to me. I don't believe the criteria is ambiguous at all, and unfortunately there are many pages that could and do fit into this category. Mononomic ( talk) 19:47, 9 November 2008 (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: Speedy delete per G4, previously discussed and deleted. Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:People who died on their birthdays ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a superfluous category that defines over-categorization. This has no meaning or application beyond coincidence. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 05:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Too trivial for a category. Is my mind playing tricks on me, or did we recently delete a nearly identical category? Cgingold ( talk) 06:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete - repost of deleted category. Tagged. Otto4711 ( talk) 06:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy del per Otto - recreation of deleted category. Lugnuts ( talk) 10:05, 8 November 2008 (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: Delete. All articles have other categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Category:Vehicle activated signs ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete! There's only one page in vehicle activated signs, which is the article "vehicle activated signs". Doesn't really make sense to me. Mononomic ( talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete this category has no real benefit over Category:Traffic signs, it also only has one member (I tried to find other pages that qualified but didn't find a single one). Icewedge ( talk) 08:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Perfect. Now, I'm new to category deletion, how does one do this? Do we need an admin or to post it somewhere else? Thanks. Mononomic ( talk) 15:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

With certain exceptions (and this is not one) CFD discussions are kept open for at least 5 days, at which point they can be "closed" (usually by an admin). So feel free to get yourself a snack, take a nap, watch a video, or play a round of golf. And check back from time to time to see if there's a comment that you might want to respond to. Btw, you really should add the world "Delete" in bold letters to your nomination. (Just don't keep repeating it elsewhere, that tends to annoy people! :) Cgingold ( talk) 15:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge, not delete, as the article is in only 1 of the 2 parents. Johnbod ( talk) 20:37, 9 November 2008 (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. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations on the Wirral to Category:Disused railway stations in Wirral

Nominator's rationale: Wirral refers to the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral, not the Wirral Peninsula, (part of the Wirral is in Cheshire, but the stations in that area are in Category:Disused railway stations in Cheshire) so the name is misleading — Snigbrook 01:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Sensible solution. --- BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:13, 8 November 2008 (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.