Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Category:Service lifecycle management[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one article in the category, and there is not even an article about Service lifecycle management as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2018 (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:TheStreet.com[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless category with no purpose. Just waste of space. Störm (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2018 (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.

Years and decades in medieval Norway[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/delete as nominated, except "Years of the YYth century in Norway" (no consensus) per User:BrownHairedGirl's comment about the usefulness of these as containers for "YYYY in Norway" articles. Each category contains 5–23 articles at this time, so WP:SMALLCAT does not apply across the board. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain just one article. This nomination proposes upmerging years and decades to century level. Just based on number of articles per decade one might consider only upmerging years to decades as an alternative. However by far most of the articles in this tree are of the form 1316 in Norway and 1319 in Norway which are naturally sorted on a category page, so for navigation purposes a century category is perfectly fine. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. For larger entities like empires, "by decade" is appropriate, but for smaller entities like this, "by century" is more appropriate for the medieval period at least. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support. Keep decades, and keep "Years of the NNth century in Norway‎". Merge/delete the rest.
I agree that year is too fine a division for this era, but keeping the decades removes 90% of the categories while still allowing some breakdown of the centuries.
The "Years of the NNth century in Norway‎" categories are useful as a container for the "YYYY in Norway" articles. I see no need to zap them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as part of the larger establishments in Norway tree which extends to the current day. There many other countries with 11th century categories so allowing for navigation between countries. Tim! (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination certainly does not propose to remove the 11th century category, so this is not an issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Tim as abandoned the "Complete misunderstanding of Smallcat" argument then? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- These are miniscule categories, which hinder navigation. From the number of articles with year categories "15th century in Norway" (which should be kept) will not be too full. I can see an argument for saying that merging to Europe is going too far. Scandanavia might (defined as Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) might be more appropriate, with eastern Europe (east of Holy Roman Empire), Balkans, Italy, France, British Isles and Iberia as siblings. However, unless we can reach a consensus on how to divide Europe, we need to merge to a Europe target. After 1500, the national merge target should probably be by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Extending these categories before 1500 was done too quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2018 (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:Freshwater fish of Florida[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. I have put the List of fishes of Florida in Category:Lists of fauna of Florida, where it should have been already. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For a species such as Speckled madtom being found in Florida is non-defining.  See this CFD in 2014.  The list may need to be placed in a Florida-specific category.  Note: Afaics there are no equivalent categories for other states. DexDor (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2018 (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:Fictional pedophiles[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. Despite two relistings, there is no clear consensus here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More inclusive; some characters listed are technically not pedophiles. --Samantha Ireland (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A bit of the apples and oranges here. Pedophilia is an exclusive sexual attraction towards "prepubescent children", typically younger than 13-years-old. Hebephilia is persistent sexual interest towards children in the early stages of adolescence, typically between 11 and 14-years-old. The study we cite from the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld noted that about 2/3 of those questioned expressed interest in the young adolescents, while interest in the prepubescents was less often. Pedophilia is currently classified as a psychiatric disorder, while hebephilia is not and is considered likely to be far more commonplace in adults. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While all of that is true, the problem is that people regularly conflate the two — e.g. while most (though certainly not all) media sources about the Roy Moore allegations were correctly more careful in their terminology, in everyday conversation people just incorrectly called him a pedophile. So articles about non-pedophiles keep getting added to this category, and readded again if they get removed, so we would need to either add "hebephiles" to the name for clarity (libel not an issue given that we're talking about fictional characters here) or create a separate category for the hebephiles. I don't know which of those is the better solution, but we definitely can't just leave the category at its existing name without doing something about the repeated addition of non-pedophiles to it. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the ranges "younger than 13-years-old" and "between 11 and 14-years-old" are partly overlapping, that might imply that hebephiles and pedophiles are also partly overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 13 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - I suspect they only appear overlapping because they have been approximated to an age in the discussion above. paedophilia is attraction to pre-pubescent children; hebephilia is attraction to pubescent children and adolescents. Those are quite distinct categories. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment People undergo puberty-related changes at different ages. "In the 21st century, the average age at which children, especially girls, reach puberty is lower compared to the 19th century, when it was 15 for girls and 16 for boys. This can be due to any number of factors, including improved nutrition resulting in rapid body growth, increased weight and fat deposition, or exposure to endocrine disruptors such as xenoestrogens, which can at times be due to food consumption or other environmental factors. Puberty which starts earlier than usual is known as precocious puberty. Puberty which starts later than usual is known as delayed puberty." Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is quite problematic if you look at the articles in it. Based on the texts of the articles I would classify most of the characters as fictional hebephiles, but it regularly requires a bit of OR to make that call (victims are e.g. a student, a teenager). It's also often not clear whether there is an exclusive sexual attraction. Renaming per nom and splitting are both possible, but even plain deletion is a realistic opion because it becomes too subjective to classify a character along these lines. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 26 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:21, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment I have relisted this for an unusual second time because it's a topic on which huge numbers of people usually have something to say, but v few have commented here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is overlap, as noted in the Hebephilia article, which I've worked on. And some early pubescents, especially boys, can look prepubescent. Anyway, there are not a lot of fictional character sources using the term hebephile or hebephilia. And as noted in the Hebephilia article, hebephilia is about the sexual preference...not a mere instance of an adult having found a 14-year-old sexually attractive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I posted a notification at the talk page of WikiProject Sexuology and sexuality. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These should be two distinct categories, because they are two distict things, even if they are often seen as the same thing. Two topics, two cats should be our approach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2018 (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:Birds of the Miombo[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. – Fayenatic London 17:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or merge to the lower level Category:Birds of Southern Africa etc. DexDor (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Few (if any) of the articles (e.g. Angolan lark, Upemba shrew) in these categories make any mention of Miombo; it appears that the creator of these categories has been categorizing articles based on an off-wiki list rather (rather than the information in the articles) - e.g. see this discussion. We have categories such as Category:Fauna of Southern Africa which form a more comprehensive set of categories and are easier to categorize articles in as articles about species usually list the continents/countries in which the species is found. See also this list where miombo isn't mentioned. DexDor (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Miombo is a Savannah habitat zone. Such zones are likely each to have their characteristic fauna and flora. Sub-Saharan Africa is far too big an area to make a useful category. The fact that the creator is using a non-Wiki list probably adds to its merit, though he might have done better by starting with a list, which would enable his sources to be cited. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miombo woodland is really an environment rather than a zone. Categorizing species by what environment they live in may work for some types of fauna (e.g. freshwater fish), but for mammals and birds it's generally too messy to work well for categorization - e.g. the first article in the Birds of the Miombo category says "Its natural habitats are boreal forests, subtropical or tropical dry forests, subtropical or tropical swamps, and subtropical or tropical moist montane forests." (no specific mention of miombo). DexDor (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - all the birds are noticeably present across the region : http://datazone.birdlife.org/home
    - it would also be fairer to include 'Miombo' in every article rather than to supress the whole category (talk) --Couiros22 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge – if Miombo is not mentioned in an article it cannot possibly be defining. A list would be viable, a category is not. Oculi (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 January 26 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with that. DexDor (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is, because these birds' ranges are specifically affected to this area... (see link) --Couiros22 (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Another reason is that there are currently bird categories for all other major environmental regions (cf. Pampa, Atlantic Forest... in South America, Sahel, Ruwenzori... in Africa, the Himalayas, Manchuria... in Asia) that each include birds whose geographical ranges are in high correlation to those areas. So why get rid of the Miombo category only and keep the rest ? --Couiros22 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE and I'm not sure what you're referring to - e.g. Category:Birds of the Ruwenzori is a redlink (and Category:Rwenzori Mountains doesn't have a subcat for birds). DexDor (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests" (essentielly the same as "Ruwenzori")
Can you answer my question ? --Couiros22 (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be merged too. Note that it would be helpful if you would add a link to the category reference. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all the birds in the Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests category are exclusively restricted to that particular region. So why should it be merged ? --Couiros22 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You created Category:Birds of the Albertine Rift montane forests and put articles (e.g. Banded prinia) in it - afaics without any discussion at WT:BIRDS (whose members don't want overcategorization of birds by geography - e.g. see this).  That category hasn't (yet) been discussed at CFD but so it's very much OSE. DexDor (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
cherry picking... that bird has a slightly wider geographical range (yet it is nonetheless still quite visibly affected to the ARMF region). It isn't over categorization, given such regions tend to correlate birds' ranges much better than political sub-areas (e.g. "Birds of Southern Africa") --Couiros22 (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge: Miombo is a vegetation type and not a region or area. Like all vegetation types there is an area where it grows and there are birds and mammals associated with it, but that doesn't make it different from other plants. Also I'm not sure why miombo is capitalized in the title of this category. It's not capitalized at the article or in species names containing it.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of birds in the miombo category are narrowly restricted to this area http://datazone.birdlife.org/home Please address this. --Couiros22 (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Couiros22: That is the second time you have posted that link, as if it was some sort of evidence in support of your view.
All it actually demonstrates is that a website exists. It shows nothing about the miombo, let alone proving that it is a region or an accepted way of categorising birds.
You might as well post a link to http://www.google.com, and ask that people "please address this". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:44, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it does — type in the name of almost any bird in the category... its range will encompass the miombo region rather effectively. --Couiros22 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Couiros22: That still amounts to "go Google". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does that suggest the only problem is that the articles themselves lack any reference to the "miombo habitat" ? in any case :
a) this is remediable
b) the miombo category itself is still valid --Couiros22 (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Couiros22: Articles should be based on reliable sources. So no article should be in any category unless cited reliable sources support that categorisation.
However the fundamental problem remains that:
  1. you have provided zero evidence to justify your claim that the miombo is an accepted way of categorising birds. (As noted above, "go Google" is not evidence)
  2. you have provided zero evidence that being found in the miombo is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these birds
So your statement that the miombo category itself is still valid is simply unevidenced, unreasoned assertion. The closer can attach no weight to it.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BirdLife Int., Avibase etc. are reliable sources though. --Couiros22 (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those websites are reliable and frequently referred to on Wikipedian bird articles. --Couiros22 (talk) 10:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am not an expert on this, but I strongly suspect that there are birds that are characteristic of particular climatic/vegetation regions. It is appropriate to use such categories. A whole continent (even sub-Saharan Africa) is much too big an area to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In most/all cases the editors who wrote the articles made no mention of miombo - e.g. "The Upemba shrew ... is a species of shrew .... It is endemic to Democratic Republic of the Congo. Its natural habitat is swamps.". DexDor (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases they do however (e.g. Meller's mongoose) ; if they don't, the word "savannah" is often/always used instead, implying the miombo region. --Couiros22 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The savanna article doesn't mention miombo. DexDor (talk) 08:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The miombo is a savanna region ; besides the article isn't expected to mention every savannah region throughout the world. --Couiros22 (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Miombo is a type of tree/woodland.  Even if your statement "The miombo is a savanna region" is correct (the Miombo article indicates it's not as simple as that) it doesn't necessarily mean that the reverse ("savanna implies miombo") is true. DexDor (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be a defined biome highly relevant to the distribution of these species – it would be very useful if User:Couiros22 could add this miombo detail to the articles in question. Given sufficient time for this, I have no opposition to any user who subsequently wishes to remove this category from any article which does not specifically mention and cite distribution in the miombo. SFB 02:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The French article has a map of miombo areas. According to BirdLife Int., all birds present in the category have ranges distinctly attributable to that area(s).
I'll do my best to add "miombo" to every relevant article. --Couiros22 (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just come across this discussion by accident. First, why are you having this discussion without inviting the leading contributors of bird images to Wikipedia/Commonsto participate? This is no way to decide policy on something as important as bird categories. Wikipedia is not the place for OR and therefore Wikipedia should follow the geographical structures established by bird experts. The respected Field Guides follow Birds of Southern Africa; Birds of South Africa; they do not publish their research as Birds of the Miombo or Birds of Sub-Saharan Africa or whatever. When we categorize images, those of us who actually upload images usually use a country/region/district stucture so Birds of South Africa, but if it's in the Kruger Park Birds of Kruger National Park as a sub-category of Birds of South Africa. There is also a parallel structure that some use, so an eagle in the Kruger Park might be categorized as Accipitriformes of South Africa as a sub-category of Birds of South Africa. We cannot dictate what categories people use. Both have merit. You propose merging into Birds of Sub-Saharan Africa I don't believe either has merit. I aslo cannot see the relevance of quoting Bird Life International as an authority. Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:BIRDS has been notified[1] twice[2] (as well as at WP:BIRDS#Article_alerts) and afaik that's only attracted one person to this discussion.  We wouldn't normally (also) notify Commons (if you think we should then that probably needs a discussion re the pages about CFD procedure).
Categories such as Birds of Kruger National Park might work well on Commons where you are categorizing the location of photos, but when categorizing an article about a species that might put the article in a lot of categories - see, for example, CFD discussions such as this. DexDor (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2018 (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:2018 UPSL season[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. Though the nomination was withdrawn after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14, the category's article is in the parent category and the templates are all in Category:United Premier Soccer League templates, making this redundant. I'll preemptively do this for Category:2017—18 UPSL season as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Category for a season that fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination as a result of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2018 (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:United Premier Soccer League seasons[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 per withdrawal of nomination after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 February 14.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

:Nominator's rationale: Category for non-notable league seasons, fails WP:GNG Jay eyem (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination as a result of the deletion review. Jay eyem (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:43, 4 February 2018 (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:Serbian titles[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same category, I believe. Category:Titles by country has no other case in which the category is given as both "Titles in X" and "Xs titles". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:34, 3 February 2018 (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:Fictional capital ships[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two members, both of which are already in appropriate subcategories of the fictional spacecraft category tree. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2018 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_3