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.
Oppose. There was a previous discussion about this which chose to retain the "in" convention for consistency. Category page area navigational device, not the text of a featured article, and grammatical perfection in category titles can be the enemy of good navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
Your suggested criteria of "ignoring large ones and states" is also problematic, because it is fuzzy in both respects. By states, do you mean sovereign states? Or do you include non-sovereign entities, and if so which ones? There are many well-founded definitions which could be used. Large is also a fuzzy concept, and could be defined by area or by population. Look at the table to the right of a few examples I dug out. How do you propose to apply consistent principle across that set?
@
BrownHairedGirl: By "state" I was meaning a first order diversion of a country such as US state (like California), an English county (like Cornwall) or a French department (like Essonne). But this would of course include countries (ie sovereign states to). For England, Scotland and Wales this would mean that all islands (apart from Anglesey due to as noted it containing other islands) use "on" not "in". I'm less sure how it would work with other countries but I'd note that there is
Category:Churches in Lolland and
Category:Lakes of Zealand and most others do indeed use "in" but some (like
Sardinia) are also administrative divisions and include other areas. For "large" I would only include Great Britain its self for England, Scotland and Wales. So yes consistency is desired here but in terms of the Scottish islands as noted more of
Category:Villages on Scottish islands use "on" than "in" so its even more confusing to have some using "on" (like Jura) and some using "in" (like Islay). Crouch, Swale (
talk)
10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: thanks for that reply, but it all gets a bit theological, doesn't it?
It seems that
Ynys Môn isn't an island cos it's joined to a much smaller isle by a 200-year-old causeway whereas
Lewis and Harris is an island because despite being almost chopped in two, its causeway is natural.
Lolland is an island and its not a govt unit, but its categorised as if it was an island, and so on.
Anglesey is the "parent" island to Holy Island so if we took that view then Holy Island (not Anglesey) would no longer be an island (Haswell-Smith doesn't list the Isle of Skye as an island due to the
Skye Bridge connecting it to the mainland) but
Middle Mouse is clearly not part of Anglesey anyway.
Lewis and Harris indeed is and island (and not
Harris and the
Isle of Lewis, despite the name) but as noted "on" can also apply to other landforms so we might have a category like "Snow on Ben Nevis" anyway (presumably only on Commons).
Lolland is indeed not a govt unit, that is the
Lolland Municipality (my mistake). Crouch, Swale (
talk)
11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The setup in other countries was the best that I could find based on searches and existing category structure, as noted using "on" seems to be the long-standing setup for the Isle of Wight. As noted I'm fine with us using "in" for all islands but we have a mixture of both for Scotland which is even more confusing. Perhaps "in" v "on" also falls under
WP:ENGVAR which would allow us to have different setups for different countries but I agree that that indeed would be confusing. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Using "on" seems to make more sense. If the primary concern is consistency, we need to establish consistent usage first; it's easy to find lots of islands using "in" and lots of islands using "on". For example, all relevant subcategories of
Category:Crete use "in", while the subcategories of
Category:Populated places in Hawaii by island all use "on". After checking a bunch of island and island-group categories, I believe that we tend to use "in" when the island matches a jurisdiction (e.g.
Category:Greenland) and "on" when it doesn't (e.g.
Category:Long Island). But if we're making an argument based on consistency, we either need to formalise what appears to be the current situation, or we need to establish a different standard instead. Until we start to establish a standard, we'll have to go with what seems best, and "on" seems better than "in" here.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Question about burials Being buried "on" an island sounds like a mausoleum; in ordinary cases, I'd be inclined to use buried "in" an island because one's underground, i.e. in the island. Same with geological features and other manmade subsurface features, e.g. "francium deposits in Skye" or "Cold War nuclear shelters in Skye". Do others share my opinion?
Nyttend (
talk)
22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. Whilst "on" is sometimes used colloquially in connection with island place names, "in" is more common and formal usage in Scotland. Note also that of the above, not all are islands anyway. Lewis is the northern portion of a large island; Harris is the southern portion of that island plus several other islands, at least two of them inhabited; Skye would generally be understood to include a number of surrounding islands in addition to the main island. This usage may be connected to the fact that these places are thought of as geopolitical entities, not just islands: Harris is a parish, Lewis a group of districts, Skye the island part of the Skye and Lochalsh committee area and so on. I note that this usage is not restricted to Scotland either; we have for example
Category:Populated places in Anglesey and its subcategories. --
Deskford (
talk)
15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment.
Deskford's explanation of the complexities of defining what is a Scottish island complements my broader concerns, and reinforces my decision to oppose. As far as I can see, any attempt to make a clear and consistent definition is doomed to fail, so any decision on what places should use the "on" format will be subjective and arbitrary. Such arbitrary choices are unhelpful to both readers and editors. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BrownHairedGirl: Would it be worth listing the others in a "collapsed" listing (that is to say list all the "on" the Isle of Wight and on the Isle of Mull etc) so that each category tree that uses "on" can be considered to renaming to "in" (for if the above ones aren't renamed to "on"). I didn't think of listing option A/B/C etc since I didn't think this would be controversial/complicated but it has turned out to be. I indeed do think its a disservice to both readers and editors to have some Scottish islands using "on" and some using "in" for no good reason, and consistency is needed. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Yes, we agree on consistency. But how to get there?
Now that this one has been open for two weeks I would be v wary of the procedural viability of turning it into an A/B choice this late in the game. If a major new option was added now, it would be be hard for a closer to weigh the discussion.
So I think we are where we are. If this is closed as "keep", then a followup option is needed for the existing "on" categories. If it's closed as no consensus, then an Option A/Option B nomination in a few months would be the next step. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd agree with that, personally I wouldn't suggest a "few months" wait is expected (since an A/B nomination would involve more than just these and thus a different proposal) but I'd do so anyway since it would probably be better to let the dust settle a bit anyway especially since one option would still be "use on for all). Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment it makes a difference to me whether the name of the island is also that of some legal entity (such as many of the examples being discussed above: Sardinia, Tasmania) especially when our article encompasses both senses of the topic. Because many of those legal entities encompass more than the single main island (see, e.g.,
Category:Islands of Sardinia and
Category:Islands of Tasmania), and any settlements "on" those islands are also "in" Sardinia or Tasmania but clearly not "on" Sardinia or Tasmania. Note: sometimes we do distinguish between the two senses:
Great Britain an island, not including the islands we're discussing and
Kingdom of Great Britain which includes them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:52, 5 April 2019 (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.
Discovery, Inc.
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 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:Buildings and structures in Kalocsa
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 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.
Proponents of Christian feminism
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 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:delete, redundant container category with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in the relevant trees.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:38, 31 March 2019 (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:National Heroes of Azerbaijan
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.
Were all Azerbaijani military personnel killed in the Nagorno-Karabakh War awarded this honour? Has nobody else been awarded this honour? If the answer to both questions is no, then we should keep this category. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The online sources in English are a POV nightmare but to answer your questions: 1) Yes, I beleive the award was automatic for those killed in this war. 2) No, there are also handful of Azerbaijani civilians killed in the war and soldiers who survived it who also received the award who are under the parent category
Category:Azerbaijani people of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. (We continue to respectfully disagree whether every award that is not automatically issued is
WP:DEFINING.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The article says that more than 1,000 Azerbaijani soldiers were killed in the war (although other sections appear to suggest far more were)! Are you saying they all received this award (because that's not what the article suggests and it should be rewritten with evidence if it's true)? If not, I think it's hard to argue that a country's highest honour is not defining! --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by Nominator The
Heydar Aliyev Order is listed as the top award of Azerbaijan in Wikipedia but the Azerbaijani government makes a distinction between orders and medals and sees this one as the top of the second group (
here, page 22. I always defer to country's top civilian/military awards and here would do the same for the top order/medal.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
20:15, 4 April 2019 (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:Ottawa Sport Hall of Fame inductees
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
Ottawa Sport Hall of Fame is a city government supported hall of fame to promote sports in Ottawa and recognized both athletes from Ottawa who perform elsewhere and athletes from elsewhere who play in local teams (or both obviously). The museum has moved around to different civic buildings but I think
this is the current display. I clicked through quite a few articles and none of the ones I read even mentioned this award so it doesn't seem defiing. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:17, 31 March 2019 (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.
Oppose. There was a previous discussion about this which chose to retain the "in" convention for consistency. Category page area navigational device, not the text of a featured article, and grammatical perfection in category titles can be the enemy of good navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree that consistency is better for navigation (and for editorial categorisation), but:
your proposal would still leave us using a different format for different geographical entities, which is not consistent
Your suggested criteria of "ignoring large ones and states" is also problematic, because it is fuzzy in both respects. By states, do you mean sovereign states? Or do you include non-sovereign entities, and if so which ones? There are many well-founded definitions which could be used. Large is also a fuzzy concept, and could be defined by area or by population. Look at the table to the right of a few examples I dug out. How do you propose to apply consistent principle across that set?
@
BrownHairedGirl: By "state" I was meaning a first order diversion of a country such as US state (like California), an English county (like Cornwall) or a French department (like Essonne). But this would of course include countries (ie sovereign states to). For England, Scotland and Wales this would mean that all islands (apart from Anglesey due to as noted it containing other islands) use "on" not "in". I'm less sure how it would work with other countries but I'd note that there is
Category:Churches in Lolland and
Category:Lakes of Zealand and most others do indeed use "in" but some (like
Sardinia) are also administrative divisions and include other areas. For "large" I would only include Great Britain its self for England, Scotland and Wales. So yes consistency is desired here but in terms of the Scottish islands as noted more of
Category:Villages on Scottish islands use "on" than "in" so its even more confusing to have some using "on" (like Jura) and some using "in" (like Islay). Crouch, Swale (
talk)
10:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: thanks for that reply, but it all gets a bit theological, doesn't it?
It seems that
Ynys Môn isn't an island cos it's joined to a much smaller isle by a 200-year-old causeway whereas
Lewis and Harris is an island because despite being almost chopped in two, its causeway is natural.
Lolland is an island and its not a govt unit, but its categorised as if it was an island, and so on.
Anglesey is the "parent" island to Holy Island so if we took that view then Holy Island (not Anglesey) would no longer be an island (Haswell-Smith doesn't list the Isle of Skye as an island due to the
Skye Bridge connecting it to the mainland) but
Middle Mouse is clearly not part of Anglesey anyway.
Lewis and Harris indeed is and island (and not
Harris and the
Isle of Lewis, despite the name) but as noted "on" can also apply to other landforms so we might have a category like "Snow on Ben Nevis" anyway (presumably only on Commons).
Lolland is indeed not a govt unit, that is the
Lolland Municipality (my mistake). Crouch, Swale (
talk)
11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The setup in other countries was the best that I could find based on searches and existing category structure, as noted using "on" seems to be the long-standing setup for the Isle of Wight. As noted I'm fine with us using "in" for all islands but we have a mixture of both for Scotland which is even more confusing. Perhaps "in" v "on" also falls under
WP:ENGVAR which would allow us to have different setups for different countries but I agree that that indeed would be confusing. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
11:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Support. Using "on" seems to make more sense. If the primary concern is consistency, we need to establish consistent usage first; it's easy to find lots of islands using "in" and lots of islands using "on". For example, all relevant subcategories of
Category:Crete use "in", while the subcategories of
Category:Populated places in Hawaii by island all use "on". After checking a bunch of island and island-group categories, I believe that we tend to use "in" when the island matches a jurisdiction (e.g.
Category:Greenland) and "on" when it doesn't (e.g.
Category:Long Island). But if we're making an argument based on consistency, we either need to formalise what appears to be the current situation, or we need to establish a different standard instead. Until we start to establish a standard, we'll have to go with what seems best, and "on" seems better than "in" here.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Question about burials Being buried "on" an island sounds like a mausoleum; in ordinary cases, I'd be inclined to use buried "in" an island because one's underground, i.e. in the island. Same with geological features and other manmade subsurface features, e.g. "francium deposits in Skye" or "Cold War nuclear shelters in Skye". Do others share my opinion?
Nyttend (
talk)
22:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I actually think "buried on" is completely normal English if one is buried on an island. There are countless examples of it. Same with Nyttend's other examples. I would see the use of "in" as being exceptionally strange. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose all. Whilst "on" is sometimes used colloquially in connection with island place names, "in" is more common and formal usage in Scotland. Note also that of the above, not all are islands anyway. Lewis is the northern portion of a large island; Harris is the southern portion of that island plus several other islands, at least two of them inhabited; Skye would generally be understood to include a number of surrounding islands in addition to the main island. This usage may be connected to the fact that these places are thought of as geopolitical entities, not just islands: Harris is a parish, Lewis a group of districts, Skye the island part of the Skye and Lochalsh committee area and so on. I note that this usage is not restricted to Scotland either; we have for example
Category:Populated places in Anglesey and its subcategories. --
Deskford (
talk)
15:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment.
Deskford's explanation of the complexities of defining what is a Scottish island complements my broader concerns, and reinforces my decision to oppose. As far as I can see, any attempt to make a clear and consistent definition is doomed to fail, so any decision on what places should use the "on" format will be subjective and arbitrary. Such arbitrary choices are unhelpful to both readers and editors. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
BrownHairedGirl: Would it be worth listing the others in a "collapsed" listing (that is to say list all the "on" the Isle of Wight and on the Isle of Mull etc) so that each category tree that uses "on" can be considered to renaming to "in" (for if the above ones aren't renamed to "on"). I didn't think of listing option A/B/C etc since I didn't think this would be controversial/complicated but it has turned out to be. I indeed do think its a disservice to both readers and editors to have some Scottish islands using "on" and some using "in" for no good reason, and consistency is needed. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Crouch, Swale: Yes, we agree on consistency. But how to get there?
Now that this one has been open for two weeks I would be v wary of the procedural viability of turning it into an A/B choice this late in the game. If a major new option was added now, it would be be hard for a closer to weigh the discussion.
So I think we are where we are. If this is closed as "keep", then a followup option is needed for the existing "on" categories. If it's closed as no consensus, then an Option A/Option B nomination in a few months would be the next step. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I'd agree with that, personally I wouldn't suggest a "few months" wait is expected (since an A/B nomination would involve more than just these and thus a different proposal) but I'd do so anyway since it would probably be better to let the dust settle a bit anyway especially since one option would still be "use on for all). Crouch, Swale (
talk)
21:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment it makes a difference to me whether the name of the island is also that of some legal entity (such as many of the examples being discussed above: Sardinia, Tasmania) especially when our article encompasses both senses of the topic. Because many of those legal entities encompass more than the single main island (see, e.g.,
Category:Islands of Sardinia and
Category:Islands of Tasmania), and any settlements "on" those islands are also "in" Sardinia or Tasmania but clearly not "on" Sardinia or Tasmania. Note: sometimes we do distinguish between the two senses:
Great Britain an island, not including the islands we're discussing and
Kingdom of Great Britain which includes them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:52, 5 April 2019 (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.
Discovery, Inc.
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 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:Buildings and structures in Kalocsa
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 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.
Proponents of Christian feminism
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 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:delete, redundant container category with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in the relevant trees.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:38, 31 March 2019 (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:National Heroes of Azerbaijan
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.
Were all Azerbaijani military personnel killed in the Nagorno-Karabakh War awarded this honour? Has nobody else been awarded this honour? If the answer to both questions is no, then we should keep this category. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The online sources in English are a POV nightmare but to answer your questions: 1) Yes, I beleive the award was automatic for those killed in this war. 2) No, there are also handful of Azerbaijani civilians killed in the war and soldiers who survived it who also received the award who are under the parent category
Category:Azerbaijani people of the Nagorno-Karabakh War. (We continue to respectfully disagree whether every award that is not automatically issued is
WP:DEFINING.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
17:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The article says that more than 1,000 Azerbaijani soldiers were killed in the war (although other sections appear to suggest far more were)! Are you saying they all received this award (because that's not what the article suggests and it should be rewritten with evidence if it's true)? If not, I think it's hard to argue that a country's highest honour is not defining! --
Necrothesp (
talk)
10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by Nominator The
Heydar Aliyev Order is listed as the top award of Azerbaijan in Wikipedia but the Azerbaijani government makes a distinction between orders and medals and sees this one as the top of the second group (
here, page 22. I always defer to country's top civilian/military awards and here would do the same for the top order/medal.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
20:15, 4 April 2019 (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:Ottawa Sport Hall of Fame inductees
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
Ottawa Sport Hall of Fame is a city government supported hall of fame to promote sports in Ottawa and recognized both athletes from Ottawa who perform elsewhere and athletes from elsewhere who play in local teams (or both obviously). The museum has moved around to different civic buildings but I think
this is the current display. I clicked through quite a few articles and none of the ones I read even mentioned this award so it doesn't seem defiing. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:17, 31 March 2019 (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.