Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 29 October 1 >

September 30[edit]

Category:Princes of Dannenberg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it's not meaningful to keep a category for one prince. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- I do not think we need a category for every fragment of Brunswick. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2015 (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:Arrow characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All characters in this cat are comic book characters that appear on Arrow (sans one). The actors and characters are already listified at List of Arrow characters plus List of Arrowverse actors. See Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters for a similar cat that has been deleted multiple times for the same reason, and these discussions: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_characters, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Characters_that_appear_in_the_MCU and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_17#Category:Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._characters. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; also an ambiguous name since Arrow character itself is a disambiguation page. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2015 (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:Arrowverse characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All characters in this cat are comic book characters that appear on various shows in the Arrowverse. The actors and characters are already listified at List of Arrowverse actors. See Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters for a similar cat that has been deleted multiple times for the same reason, and these discussions: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_27#Category:Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_characters, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_25#Category:Characters_that_appear_in_the_MCU and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_17#Category:Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._characters. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; at least this doesn't suffer from the ambiguity of the other one, but small graces doesn't save it from uselessness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The usual course of action is to merge all the character articles into one list article, converting the individual ones to redirects (or simply deleting them). While we still have a lot of substantive articles on characters, we need a category. However the category should ultimately be deleted. If this is in fact duplicating Category:Arrow characters, one should be deleted now, as a duplicate Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (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:Male Singers by Nationality[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: speedy merge to pre-existing and well-populated Category:Male singers by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I declined speedy deletion on this category. But given that it is populated with a sub category related to Pakistani male singers, it appears to be of limited utility. Safiel (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2015 (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:17th century in the Netherlands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, similar merge as for 18th century in the Netherlands which was discussed earlier in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The Netherlands are a 19th century establishment, not 17th century. Dimadick (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Netherlands is ambiguous, as it could refer to the Spanish Netherlands. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom.GreyShark (dibra) 06:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The Dutch Republic is the preferred name used by historians for this polity at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (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:Main topic classifications[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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unclear inclusion criteria fgnievinski (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The inclusion criterion is very specific. This category is supposed to include Wikipedia's main topic classifications, that are listed in the standard table of contents which is presented at the top of the starting page for each of Wikipedia's navigation systems: Portal:Contents/Overviews, Portal:Contents/Outlines, Portal:Contents/Lists, Portal:Contents/Glossaries, Portal:Contents/Portals, Portal:Contents/Indices, and Portal:Contents/Categories. The Transhumanist 08:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question @The Transhumanist: To what end? I take a pretty hands off approach to WikiProject categories on the Category talk pages, but this is on the actual Category pages so it should aid readers in navigation. Is this more of an administrative category for editors? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a WikiProject category. It's the top-tier of Wikipedia's overall classification system (which is comprised of the several navigation systems mentioned above). Every knowledge classification system has a top level (the main branches of knowledge). Wikipedia is no different. Wikipedia's major classifications are "Culture and the arts", "Geography and places", "History and events", "Health and fitness", etc. Those are the major subjects that Wikipedia breaks knowledge down into. Even the index of categories at Portal:Contents/Categories applies that standard. Note that each of the classifications are subject pairings (a main plus an example, for most of them), so to put them in categories you need to break those apart: Category:Culture, Category:Arts, Category:Geography, Category:Places, Category:History, Category:Events, etc. The Transhumanist 20:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In practice, all of these categories have parent categories (not counting this one), so they're not the top of the hierarchy from a categorization perspective. They are however conceptually top knowledge areas for some important navigation in portals outside of the categorization structure. Is that a fair summary? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Considering its entire structure, the category system doesn't have a "top", because it is a network rather than a hierarchy (hierarchies are tree structures and don't have cross-links). But there are several hierarchies embedded into it, including this one. Their tops provide significant entry points to the category system. The Transhumanist 01:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Talk Pages & Rename Rename to Category:WikiProject Outlines main topic classifications and move to the category talk pages. This vote is meant to be helpful to maintain The Transhumanist's fine work in that project while not cluttering navigation for casual readers. If this compromise is unacceptable, then Delete. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it is not part of the outline WikiProject. The standard table of contents classifications are used to classify topics throughout all of Wikipedia's contents systems, from categories to glossaries to portals to indices ,etc. See the Table of Contents (which is repeated) in each of the pages in the top row in the menu bar below. The subjects in the bottom row are the mains from the topic pairs included in that Table of Contents (and mentioned above). The Transhumanist 01:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This category should consist exclusively of academic divisions. This way it compliments the fundamental categories. I would propose a division such as Humanities and fine arts, Natural sciences, Behavioral and social sciences, Applied sciences, Professional studies, and Communication and education. This is based on the model of a typical university, whose mission is similar to Wikipedia's: to find and identify all of the substantial forms in the universe. None of these vague subcategories should be allowed like "information," "knowledge," "structure", or "world." Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. Those subjects listed in the menu bar above (second row) are academic, or at least formal (in the library science sense). And these subjects include all other topics in the encyclopedia. The Transhumanist 01:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep entry point into the category heirarchy system that complements the other Wikipedia (and not WikiProject) navigation -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @The Transhumanist: Thank you for your thoughtful reply. We still disagree on the usefulness of this in the category space but the background was helpful. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category has been cleaned up. It doesn't look much like it did when this discussion started. The Transhumanist 19:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that the inclusion criteria is rather clear now. - jc37 20:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (after checking that it won't leave anything unparented). There is no need for this as well as Category:Fundamental categories. DexDor (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how deleting this would help our readers. -- œ™ 07:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep the category and limit it's members to academic areas. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2015 (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:Four species[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus on deletion, therefore rename. There is no Jewish ritual called "Four Species", therefore rename to Category:Four species (Sukkot) which matches parent category:Sukkot. – Fayenatic London 16:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not needed. Four Species is an item, the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page. Yossiea (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but rename clearly That's not how categories work! That "the corresponding Wikipage about the Four Species contains all the links currently in the category page" is no reason to delete, given there are a deal more than 4 articles in the category - currently 9. Please list for Jewish-related deletions. Should be renamed something like Category:Four species (Jewish ritual). Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that certain species are integral to one religious rite is not what makes the species notable. Thus, trivial. Not unlike creating a category Category:Bell, Book and Candle from the notable movie and including bell, book, and candle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Sukkot As far as I can tell the only thing the category is doing is setting out someone's opinion of which varieties of citron are suitable for use as the etrog of the feast. Indeed, the category is somewhat misleading because one needs to read the article to understand how the Torah passage is interpreted to mean these specific four plant parts. Some of these entries (but not, I think, the various citron variety articles) need to be in the Sukkot category, but I'm dubious about it as a separate category. Mangoe (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per Johnbod. Their relation to Jewish ritual makes this a valid category, but it needs better description to make it clear that they are not a random selection. my reaction (before I looked) was trhat it was going to be about the four living creatures of Ezekiel and Revelation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod. Though I think that Category:Four species (Sukkot), *might* be clearer.Naraht (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per reason given by Johnbod. The name is too ambiguous. Although Category:Four species (Sukkot) would be just as clear and probably better. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being one of the four species used by a small sub-group of Jews is not defining to Citron. This is all the more clear since the article also mentions that in China Citron is widely used in offerings to the Buddha, but no corresponding category for Category:Plants commonly used in Buddhist ritual exists. Not every detail that will appear in an article needs to be categorized by, only those that are defining, and this is not defining to the plants involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. A non-defining characteristic and gateway to a possibly horrendous precedent. — ξxplicit 07:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlos and Explicit. I agree that this is non-defining for those species that are so categorized. The point about their use in Sukkot can easily be made in the relevant article text. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod. CN1 (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2015 (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:Food grains[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contested at CFDS. Following an RM decision to make this the primary topic again, the category should be moved back to where it was pre-2014. The target title redirects here anyway. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Food grains to Category:Grains – C2D: per Grain. Jenks24 (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose speedy worth keeping the clarification. That grain actually only means food grain is dubious. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is bizarre to me that the category gets moved from Category:Grains (which still redirects there) to Category:Food grains per C2D, but when the article gets moved back apparently C2D shouldn't apply. Why should C2D only apply in one direction? Jenks24 (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That was an odd move discussion, & sometimes categories need to be extra-clear. The complicated OED entry on "grain" does not support the idea that grains refer only to edible types. That may be the primary meaning, which might be enough for an article, but category names need to be clearer. Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod: what are some articles that could theoretically be categorized as Category:Grains but we would not place in Category:Food grains? Not snark or trying to make a point—sincerely wondering what sort of article is in question here and if there would be a practical difference in terms of WP categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's really the wrong question, although the OED doesn't define grain as restricted to food. The right one is "What might people think Category:Grains covers?", and given the range of uses in material science etc, I think there's potential for confusion. It should not be speedied anyway. See below. Johnbod (talk) 04:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly Johnbod, there are no wrong questions. Thanks for your quick response! (I agree it should not be speedied when users object on reasonable grounds—speedies are for non-controversial issues or issues that perhaps were controversial but have been at least temporarily settled by consensus.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Object to CFDS rename Grain (disambiguation) shows the ambiguity in this. There are many prominent topics in unrelated areas -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@RGloucester, Srnec, Steel1943, Thewellman, and Three-quarter-ten: Just found out template only supports 7 names, the rest of the originally intended editors are now added. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support category:Grains per WP:PRIMARY and Good Olfactory. Plural form is not ambiguous, etymology shows history of word used to describe seeds and from that other small particles generally, and though other definitions follow in short order, use to describe food grains being the most common. This is what dab pages are for, grain of salt, grain of sand, wood grain, etc. Also "factor of least surprise" is at work here, google hits has food-related pages primary for quite a while, occasional wood grain references pop up. Montanabw(talk) 22:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Keep consistent with the article. While there are some specialized uses, food grains are by far the most common. older ≠ wiser 22:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to maintain consistency. North America1000 00:55, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support grains -- I suppose that a grain of sand, but I doubt we will ever need a category to include them. Perhaps that objection can be dealt with by having a headnote defining the category as relating to food grains and placing an "otheruses" dablink on the page (yes I know that leads to articles, not categories). And populate -- I did not see wheat, oats, barley, rice, millet or maize in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2015 (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:Old Saxon language[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Old Saxon. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • Category:Old Saxon language to Category:Old Saxon – C2D: per Old Saxon. Armbrust The Homunculus 21:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object to CFDS speedy rename that article carries a hatnote leading to the people, the Saxons of yore, instead of the people of Saxony. So this would result in an ambiguous situation as to which we are referring to, particularly since their category is called Category:Old Saxons, and only Wikipedia convention makes the difference between using plural and singular, and not actual English-language differences between the two positions. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom The language was moved five years ago; the category never caught up. Mangoe (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, also I do not precisely understand the objection as mentioned in the CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The choice between using singular form and plural form is purely a stylistic choice in the case of the people category, an Old Saxon or the Old Saxons. The category itself relies solely on Wikipedia convention two distinguish between the two. That isn't a real world distinction, since a person and the language can both be called "Old Saxon", thus making the category for the language highly ambiguous with one for persons that are Old Saxons. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you create a bot to automatically move non-language articles into the ethic category, you run into the situation where a modern Old Saxon speaker appears vs an ethnic Old Saxon one would categorize in one, the other in the other. But that bot will then mistransfer such biographies to the wrong category. So it is better to establish that one is for people and the other is for language. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now I understand better. Still, this problem may occur with other languages as well and I think the convention in Wikipedia is well-established. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename If 70.51.202.113 feels the article hatnote is valuable, no objection to recreating it on the category. I don't see how having different name for the main article and category would aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. The convention is to put people in the plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2015 (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:Superlatives in sports[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 to Category:Perfect scores in sports. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME
This is a worthwhile category that groups together the best possible scores in different sports: Nine finish in Darts, Eight-ender in Curling, Golden set in Tennis, etc. The current name and parent category don't work because, grammatically, most of these are not actually superlatives. This nomination just seeks to get the category to better describe the actual contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Nickst as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Sports. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:13, 30 September 2015 (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:Algae genera[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The title is ungrammatical, since algae is plural. It is like saying "plants genera" or "animals genera". All corresponding categories use the singular in the name, such as Category:Plant genera and Category:Fungus genera. EncycloPetey (talk) 02:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Algal genera -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Who ever uses the singular, even if it is strictly correct? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; if "Algal" were used as the IP suggested, that would prompt the given example to be switched to "Fungal". —烏Γ (kaw), 19:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. In cases such as this, I think a good solution is to use the proper (singular) word but keep a redirect on category version that uses the improper (plural) word since the chance of the plural being used is relatively high. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_30&oldid=1090392149"