Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 May 8

: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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|IFL National Championship MVPs}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|IFL Most Valuable Player Award winners}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|IFL National Championship trophies and awards}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Indoor Football League trophies and awards}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|IFL National Championship lists}}

:Nominator's rationale: The "IFL National Championship MVP" and IFL MVP awards aren't even notable enough for standalone articles, so they're not defining for these players. As a result, the two container IFL "trophies and awards" cats listed above will also need deleted. The IFL National Championship list also only has one article. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment :Category:IFL National Championship lists was emptied by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:33, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Yes, I merged the list there into a bigger article because it's not notable enough for a standalone page. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2025 (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: rename. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Oak Ridge High School (El Dorado Hills, California) to :Category:Oak Ridge High School (El Dorado Hills, California) alumni

:Nominator's rationale: I'm assuming it was an oversight that "alumni" was left out of the title of this category. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• As creator, yes it is just an oversight. I support speedying this.--User:Namiba 13:36, 8 May 2025 (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: prune but keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Jerzy Popiełuszko}}

:Nominator's rationale: This category seems unnecessary that it may lead to overcategorization. Typically, blessed or saints in Catholicism, especially since 1800s do not need to have eponymous categories, or that they typically aren't the founding fathers, along with not being publicly known to the world. Inajd0101 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:For example, since John Bosco article has probably more than 10 articles associated with him, he doesn't have an eponymous category. Plus, I feel like this category should be deleted. Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

• Delete - totally unreasonable for this Category. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Keep but purge, there are 5 articles that are really about the subject. That should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Which ones if I may ask? Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :* Jerzy Popiełuszko, Museum of Martyrdom of the Blessed Father Jerzy Popiełuszko, Popieluszko: Freedom is Within Us, To Kill a Priest and Tomb of Blessed Father Jerzy Popiełuszko should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :*:Should I do it now, or should I do it after this discussion ends? Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :*:* Preferably wait until the discussion is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Comment By the way, the reason why I started this deletion is that I want your guys’ thoughts on this category I created (although I shouldn’t do that) and, to respect and follow Wikipedia standards, I don’t want to screw things up (well which I did) by creating unnecessary eponymous category. Thanks! Inajd Inajd0101 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2025 (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. ✗plicit 04:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Pages with obsolete Vega 1.0 graphs}}

:Nominator's rationale: The category is in the category of automatically populated by MediaWiki, but I can't seem to find this category in an insource search. Gonnym (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm not finding it at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AllMessages?prefix=graph&filter=all&lang=en&limit=5000 Special:AllMessages], so a provisional delete per WP:C4. But {{yo|Pppery}} do you happen to know whether we are looking in the right place? Is this category safe for deletion? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Ah, yes, the Graph godawfulness ... There two separate stories to tell.
• : What actually happened: when the Graph extension was disabled however long ago that was it completely depopulated all of its tracking categories other than :Category:Pages with disabled graphs and :Category:Pages using the Graph extension. This would not have been reflected in either Special:AllMessages or Special:TrackingCategories (which is a better place to look here). This by itself would not have supported a C4 deletion as at the time we had thought this was only a temporary change. When it was decided that Graph was going to be replaced by Chart instead of re-enabled, then it would have became C4 eligible were it not for ...
• : The other story: the category (in the now unused Graph codebase) was renamed to :Category:Pages with obsolete Vega graphs in gerrit:912410. This does still appear as MediaWiki:graph-obsolete-category (and hence in AllMessages) but it is unreachable as it's shadowed by the above bullet point. Due to a separate bug (which I would report on Phabricator except doing so would be utterly silly rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic), it doesn't appear (and never appeared) in Special:TrackingCategories.
• TLDR: this category is unreachable in two completely separate ways and can be safely deleted. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:44, 17 May 2025 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Holiday lists to :Category:Lists of observances

:Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2025 (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: keep. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Anthropomorphic horses}}

:Nominator's rationale: I looked through random 30% of the pages in category. None of them says that the ghorse there is anthrophomorphis, and what is more none of them look like anthropomorphic. [https://www.shutterstock.com/search/anthropomorphic-horse Here there are anthropomorphic horses]. On the other hand all of them see to be :Category:Talking animals. Meaning that this categorization is pure speculation of a wikipedian and it must be dismantled into :category:Fiction about talking animals. p.s. there even no horse-headed egyptian god to justify the category. --Altenmann >talk 22:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree that there is a difference between being a "talking beast" and being an anthropomorphic one. (Horace Horsecollar would be an example in this case.) A key disinction is that the latter requires representation in visual media (or some very clear description in the text). So I would support first pruning the whole tree of :Category:Anthropomorphic animals, and see what is left. I also would suggest pruning articles that are about stories, rather than about the animals themselves. - jc37 22:26, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep - The category is for horses (specifically fictional, legendary, or mythological horses) that have some degree of Anthropomorphism. I would say the category is defining for entries such as BoJack Horseman (character), Horace Horsecollar, and Quick Draw McGraw. This also falls in line with similar categories on the :Category:Anthropomorphic animals category tree. (Oinkers42) (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• OK. I didnt check all pages. If kept, it must be severely trimmed of simply talking horses, because "some degree" cannot be decided by a wikipedian and must be told in the article, with ref, unless it is self-evident, as in your examples. --Altenmann >talk 18:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Keep per Oinkers AHI-3000 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
• If not kept, it should be merged to its parent categories. Not sure if we ultimately need to keep anthropomorphic animals though, maybe "fictional" is enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:

:

• Procedural keep :Category:Anthropomorphic animals should be nominated as well as its subcategories if there is a problem with it, only nominating a single subcategory is pointless. Personally I think it's a valid category though, there could be an article on the topic as I assume it's notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Agree with the procedural keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2025 (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: no consensus. As noted by jc37, there is no prejudice against speedy renomination if discussion at Talk:Classical radicalism leads to consensus for a suitable name. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|American radicals}}

:Nominator's rationale: The term "radical" has a specific relation to classical radicalism. In the United States, that ideology was represented by the Radical Republicans, which already has :Category:Radical Republicans contained within this one. Instead, the three political figures whose articles are tagged with this category are only united as Progressive Era reformers despite huge differences in their views. For example, Eugene V. Debs is tagged with :Category:American anti-capitalists, while Henry George has :Category:American anti-communists. With poor defining characteristics, this category can be vaguely labeled onto anyone involved in far-left or far-right politics and should be deleted accordingly for using "radical" as a subjective descriptor. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Lean oppose. Deleting the category would isolate the child category :Category:Radical Republicans. Your concern seems to be equally applicable to the parent category :Category:Radicals and sibling categories, like British radicals, German radicals etc. ^SMason_Garrison 02:02, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for your input as the category creator! To clarify, if deleted, I would want :Category:Radical Republicans to be a direct child of :Category:Radicals rather than orphaned. The header text of :Category:Radicals clarifying that "radicalism does not refer here to the American English sense of the term as a left or right-wing 'radical', but to the contrary to the political tradition of Radicalism" highlights why a category for American radicals is uniquely confusing, especially when the country's distinctly radical politicians already have their own category. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 02:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - Looking at several threads on Talk:Classical radicalism, it seems there is currently no consensus as to what the name of the page should be. So until that is squared away, it's difficult to decide what the name of the related categories should be. It would appear that :Category:Radicals is an ambiguous name as-is, and probably needs some sort of modifying word or parenthetical. And until that is resolved, I'm not sure we can address this subcat as to whether it is appropriate categorisation or not. - jc37 06:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
• Lean support (with re-parenting of the subcategory), it looks as if it is not a defining characteristic of the three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 21 April 2025 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Defectors to the Free Syrian Army to :Category:?????????

:Nominator's rationale: Most defector categories are about defection from one nation to another. I'm not sure that this applies is what is happening with Syrian members of one military force joining another. ^SMason_Garrison 12:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete - it's over categorized. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{yo|Smasongarrison}} Thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Delete, as nom said, defector categories are about defection from one nation to another. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Delete is fine with me ^SMason_Garrison 04:20, 15 May 2025 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Angel games to :Category:Angel (video game publisher) games

:Nominator's rationale: Angel (company) can't be used as it leads to a dab page. Gonnym (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Merge to :Category:Bandai games or :Category:Bandai Namco games as needed. Blatant overcategorization given there is no article for this subsidiary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Merge per {{u|Zxcvbnm}} as there is no article. --woodensuperman 08:31, 13 May 2025 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose splitting :Category:Emigrants from Portuguese India to British India to :Category:Emigrants from Portuguese India and :Category:Immigrants to British India

:Nominator's rationale: narrow category. both are former countries, and notably we don't have Emigrants from Portuguese India ^SMason_Garrison 12:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment, this is a strange situation, these people will not have perceived it as emigration at all. Delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• By lack of further comments, I'll change "delete?" to "delete!". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• :{{yo|Smasongarrison}} Thoughts HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Lol, delete is fine with me in this case ^SMason_Garrison 02:58, 17 May 2025 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Babylon 5 stubs to :Category:United States science fiction television stubs

:Nominator's rationale: This stub category is extremely small; there are only two other articles in it - OpalYosutebito 『talk』 『articles I want to eat』 16:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::And Carrie Dobro shouldn't even be in it per WP:PERFCAT. --woodensuperman 17:04, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Probably delete altogether including template, the articles can be manually moved to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:

• Delete per {{u|Marcocapelle}}. --woodensuperman 08:32, 13 May 2025 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:14, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Afghan hematologists to :Category:Hematologists

:Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with :Category:Afghan physicians.

Also nominating for merge:

• :Category:Argentine hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Argentine physicians
• :Category:Azerbaijani hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Azerbaijani physicians
• :Category:Brazilian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Brazilian physicians
• :Category:Croatian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Croatian physicians
• :Category:Cypriot hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Cypriot physicians
• :Category:Egyptian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Egyptian physicians
• :Category:Finnish hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Finnish physicians
• :Category:Hungarian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Hungarian physicians
• :Category:Israeli hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Israeli physicians
• :Category:Japanese hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Japanese physicians
• :Category:Kenyan hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Kenyan physicians
• :Category:Norwegian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Norwegian physicians
• :Category:Pakistani hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Pakistani medical doctors
• :Category:Serbian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Serbian physicians
• :Category:Sri Lankan hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Sri Lankan medical doctors
• :Category:Tanzanian hematologists to :Category:Hematologists and :Category:Tanzanian medical doctors LibStar (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2025 (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: merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Greco-Roman military books (2 C) to :Category:Ancient military books

:* Propose merging :Category:Classical military writers (2 C) to :Category:Ancient military writers

:Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only the ancient Greek and ancient Roman subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:*Comment: only some of the subcategory "military books in Latin" belong to antiquity; several date from the ninth century or later. I suppose that partially-matching categories can be subcategories of multiple parents; but in any case "Latin" and "Roman" are not the same thing. I don't know whether this should make a difference to this nomination, since a majority of the category's contents does consist of Roman works from the fifth century or earlier, and thus would belong under the proposed title. P Aculeius (talk) 12:03, 1 May 2025 (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: no consensus to change the category as a result of this discussion. A merge nomination involving this category and :Category:Deaths and funerals of popes might be fruitful. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|State funerals in Vatican City}}

:Nominator's rationale: There is no difference with :Category:Funerals in Vatican City. Normal funerals would take place in Italy, and none of the pope-related articles are treated as state funerals. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

• Delete, we do not need two categories for this. Possibly rename :Category:Funerals in Vatican City to :Category:Funerals of popes. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
• : We actually do have :Category:Deaths and funerals of popes. Keivan.f^Talk 14:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Delete It's pretty much a duplicate of :Category:Funerals in Vatican City. Keivan.f^Talk 14:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• Keep If there is only one category, I'd prefer :Category:State funerals in Vatican City over :Category:Funerals in Vatican City. If there is only one, I'd prefer the State funerals category since all of the funerals listed in the latter category are for popes who are the heads of state in Vatican City. It's more in keeping to have a head of state category for this country than just a regular funerals category. :Category:Deaths and funerals of popes is a brand new category that was only created several days ago, after this CFD discussion was already started and I think it can be eliminated or turned into a redirect. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:* Presumably all clergy in Vatican City get a state funeral (i.e. funded by the Vatican state), but are any of these funerals called state funerals? I don't think so. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::There are hundreds of priest and religious men and women working in the Vatican complex and I don't think you could consider funerals for any of them to be "state funerals". I don't know who would fund them, I assume if the individual belongs to a religious order, that group would pay for a funeral. I think, no matter what country it is, "state funerals" are held for current or former leaders or for a very few number of people that are considered very important by the current leadership of a country. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Based on anciennity I agree that :Category:State funerals in Vatican City should be kept, not :Category:Deaths and funerals of popes. At the same time I expect the name "State funeral" to be inaccurate because it is either an economic thing (who pays) or a legal thing (what does the law say). There is no reason why there would be civil law about state funerals since there is already church law and customs about funerals of popes. The latter is what this is really about. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:

• Comment Just noting that this other CFD discussion that you cite was started a week after this one had already begun. So, it seems like this case has priority and also more participation. The other discussion closed earlier even though it was begun later because of limited participation by editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 10 May 2025 (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.