Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Categories for deletion)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Categories for discussion (CfD) is the central venue for discussing specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories and stub types in accordance with the guidelines for categorization, category naming and stub articles.

For detailed instructions about using CfD, see "How to use CfD" below. Briefly, nominations are handled through one of two processes:

  1. Speedy renaming and merging, for uncontroversial proposals that meet specified criteria—see "Speedy renaming and merging" below.
  2. Full discussion, for all other proposals. Discussions typically remain open at least seven days and are closed once a rough consensus has formed or no objections to the nomination are raised.

Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion.

When a category is renamed or merged with another category, in limited circumstances it may be helpful to leave an instance of the {{Category redirect|...}} template on the category's former page. See "Redirecting categories" below for more information.

Wikipedia:Move review can be used to contest the outcome of a CfD request that is limited in scope to renaming, as long as all steps are followed. If a discussion on the request closer's talk page does not resolve an issue, then a move review will evaluate the close of a CfD move discussion to determine whether or not the close was reasonable and consistent with the spirit and intent of common practice, policies, and guidelines. CfDs involving deletion should be reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.


CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages.

Current discussions[edit]

Add a new entry

Discussions awaiting closure[edit]

See also the list of individual discussions awaiting closure here.

How to use CfD[edit]

Nomination procedure[edit]


You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Nominate for deletion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.

Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, or if you prefer not to use Twinkle, follow the manual steps below.

Manual nominations[edit]

Preliminary steps.

Before nominating a category:

In the following special cases:

For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

Edit the category.

Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.

If the category is a candidate for speedy renaming or merging, use {{subst:cfr-speedy|Proposed name}} and follow the instructions at the Speedy page.
Otherwise, if nominating a single category:
If nominating a group of related categories, use a bundled nomination:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:cfd|CfD section name}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:cfm|Other category|CfD section name}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:cfr|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|CfD section name}}
  • For converting the category into a list, {{subst:cfl|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|CfD section name}} (see Template:Cfd/doc#Optional parameter)
  • Include "CfD", "CfM", "CfR", "CfS" or "CfL" in the edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • To add the template for previous nomination days, use the "full" version of the template by appending "full" to the template name, i.e. {{cfd full}}, {{cfm full}}, {{cfr full}}, {{cfs full}} and {{cfl full}}. Use the |day=, |month= and |year= parameters to make the banner link to the correct CfD page.
  • Consider adding {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|2019 February 16|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
  • For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.
Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the text= parameter, omit the Category: prefix and do not use wikilinks, as the template takes care of this.

If nominating a single category:
  • For deleting, use {{subst:cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
  • For merging, use {{subst:cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
  • For renaming, use {{subst:cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
  • For splitting, use {{subst:cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
  • For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
  • For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For a bundled nomination, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, as follows:
==== Cfd section name ====
* 1st category
* 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]
* Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.
  • If a bundled nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide some of the nominated categories.
  • In your reason, use links if mentioning articles or categories. To link to a category, use the colon trick by adding a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Foo]].
  • Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Stub types[edit]

Preliminary steps.

In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:

  • Read and understand guidance for creating stub types and stub type naming conventions.
  • Review the list of existing stub types—be advised, this list may not be comprehensive.
  • If you wish to:
    • Create a new stub type—follow the procedure for proposing new stub types.
    • Delete, merge or rename a stub category only, without deleting or renaming the associated stub template—follow the instructions above this section.
    • Delete or rename a stub template—continue to section II.
Edit the template.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.

  • For deletion, {{subst:sfd-t|Section name}}
  • For renaming, {{subst:sfr-t|Proposed name|Section name}}
  • Please include "SFD" or "SFR" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
  • Consider notifying the template's creator on their talk page. To find the contributor, check the page history of the stub template.
Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update TemplateName, ProposedName and Reason):

For {{Sfd-t}}, use:

==== Template:TemplateName ====
:* '''Propose deleting''' {{lt|TemplateName}}
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Reason. ~~~~

For {{Sfd-r}}, use:

==== Template:TemplateName ====
:* '''Propose renaming''' [[Template:TemplateName]] to [[Template:ProposedName]] 
:'''Nominator's rationale:''' Reason. ~~~~
  • In your rationale, mention how many articles currently use the template to help other editors. When linking to a category in your rationale, always add a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
  • Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Notifying interested projects and editors[edit]

In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd-notify|Category name|2019 February 16|CfD section name}} ~~~~ or write a personalized message.

Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the category

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use {{Cfd-notify}} to inform the category's creator and {{Cfdnotice2}} for all other editors.

Notifying other interested editors

It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Closing procedure[edit]

After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion. Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and, except in the case of a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented.

Redirecting categories[edit]

In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]), we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can "create" a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets.

In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relationsCategory:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

A list of redirected categories is available at Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

Speedy renaming and merging

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}} with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E can also be processed instantly as it is a variation on G7.

Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be un-tagged and de-listed after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to continue the process, it may be requested regularly at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

Speedy criteria[edit]

The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes[edit]

  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices[edit]

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names[edit]

Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names

  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name[edit]

  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous, and uncontroversial – either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). If the page names are controversial or ambiguous in any way, then this criterion does not apply, even if an article is the primary topic of its name.
  • This criterion also does not apply if there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or if there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result.

C2E: Author request[edit]

  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

Admin instructions[edit]

When handling the listings:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. Make sure that there are no oppositions to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing the opposition(s).

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed - follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is Delete, Merge, or Rename"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions[edit]

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
    • No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been as a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

This will sign and datestamp an entry automatically.

Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 10:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC). Currently, there are 196 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

English-language singers[edit]
@Fayenatic london:  Done --DannyS712 (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Opposed requests[edit]

  • Category:Germanic Christianity to Category:Christianisation of the Germanic peoplesWP:C2D, as further emphasised by Talk:Christianisation_of_the_Germanic_peoples#Requested_move_16_November_2018. PPEMES (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    certainly not to be "speedied". The renaming of the article was "speedy" enough, done based on two "votes", based on false analogy ("there are other articles with analogous names") and without review of the actual topic, or any references. The article is not about "Christianisation" itself, this is at best a sub-topic, but about the early Germanic churches, c. 4th to 10th centuries.
    There can be no doubt that the term "Germanic Christianity" does exist in scholarly use in the sense I just outlined, [1], [2], [3]. I am more than willing to look into the question of whether it is a good choice as an article name, together with editors who are interested in the topic and who have the requisite topical knowledge. This as opposed to speedying the renaming of an article in good standing under its old title for more than 12 years(!) -- but I am not interested to resolve this question based on "speedy renaming" requests, or "article move requests" based on two or three "votes" thrown in in passing, this isn't how we achieve encyclopedicity. --dab (𒁳) 10:20, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Category:Secretaries of State for Health (UK) to Category:Secretaries of State for Health (United Kingdom) – C2B - UK -> United Kingdom. There's perhaps a CfD to be had about the full name, but let's just fix the blatant C2B problem first. Le Deluge (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    Le Deluge Oppose as proposed The main article of the category is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, so this should be renamed to Category:Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care per C2D. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    I thought someone might pull this one up. The way I see it, the C2B is straightforward and can be done speedily, there's an argument for C2D but it's complicated and I'd tend to oppose it. So perfection should not be the enemy of the good. Social Care was only added to the job title a few months ago, but the category goes back decades - it was simply SoS for Health for the last 30 years so that was the title held by most of the category members and that's the WP:COMMONNAME used even now that Social Care has been added. So there's no case for a simply speedy C2D - if you want to take it to CfD then fine, but I'd ask that you let the C2B go through first.Le Deluge (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
    The main article was renamed in January, that's almost one year without being contested. I don't see why the category needs to be moved twice, if one move would suffice. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: Again you're slightly missing the point. Yes, the article was renamed a year ago because the formal title was renamed a year ago - but the category represents decades of history in which just one individual has held the post under the current title - and even then he is commonly referred to as simply the Health Secretary, with no mention of social care. So it is factually incorrect to imply that dozens of former ministers were responsible for social care, whereas you can kinda get away with referring to the current incumbent as simply SoS for Health. So as I keep saying - there isn't two speedy moves to be had, there's a single speedy C2B, and then a disputable C2D that I for one would oppose. So let's just do the easy one and then CfD the disputed one - don't let perfection be the enemy of the good. Le Deluge (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
    Le Deluge I don't think that's a problem. It's just like using the current name of a sports club for everyone who played for the club under a previous name. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Le Deluge, with respect,it seems to me that your quest for precision is based on misunderstanding the nature of UK govt departments. They are not fixed monoliths, but are more akin to holding companies which cover a wide variety of responsibilities that change over time. Those responsibilities are shuffled around between govt departments quite frequently, without any change in the Dept's name.
    I spent a few decades in England working in the third sector on public policy issues, which involved dealing with govt departments. and several strands of my work shifted Dept. In each case, it was the same same people in the same named "unit" (as Whitehall calls it), but moved under the umbrella of a different department. One strand of my work dealt with a unit which moved between 4 different Govt Depts in a decade, and to two more Depts in the next 5 years.
    This process is best illustrated by the most extreme example: Home Office#History. That's 236 years of mutation from the "Dept of Nearly Everything that Wasn't Foreign" to its current role roughly as a "police, borders and nationality ministry", shedding functions as fast as moulting dog ... but without any change of name.
    Overall, the picture is that a Dept can be renamed without change of function, or change function without renaming.
    The 2018 renaming of the "Dept of Health" to "Dept of Health and Social Care" was the former: rebranding without change of scope. You can check it for yourself at Article of The Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care and for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Transfer of Functions (Commonhold Land) Order 2018: "The functions of the Secretary of State for Health are transferred to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care". The reason was simply that Social Care had become a higher political priority, so the extra words were added to the shopfront.
    So I agree with @Armbrust. Just apply C2D, and use the current name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: Nope, I'd still oppose the C2D - Health remains the WP:COMMONNAME, speaking as a Brit who lives in the UK and who has worked for government departments. Social care is a bit of a weird one as it's one of the major "government" services that's not delivered by central government, but by local government. So historically there was just a small organising role in Whitehall that ended up with whatever department was responsible for local government (and some bits were part of Education), although in recent years the health department had absorbed some of those functions (for instance professional regulation of social workers was transferred in 2012 from memory). Even today both the Secretary of State for Education and the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Children and Families are explicitly responsible for children's social care, and the Minister for Local Government is responsible for adult social care, whereas the health secretary has no explicit mandate for social care other than as the boss of both the Minister of State for Care who oversees adult social care and integration with the NHS, and the Minister for Suicide (!). So the delivery of social care is in the hands of local authorities, and Whitehall's supervision of it is split between three departments - that's not the reason I'd oppose the C2D but it helps to explain why social care is not part of the COMMONNAME, and why it just feels really wrong to categorise historical ministers/SoS's as being responsible for social care. So I'd still support the C2B and oppose the C2D. If you want to take the C2D to CfD then I'm OK with that, but let's do the easy C2B first.Le Deluge (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Le Deluge, sorry, but I think you are way overcomplicating something quite simple. Your insistence on analysing the roles ignores the fact that roles repeatedly shift without a change in title, and titles change without a change of role. It also seems to amount to WP:OR, because the substance of your objection seem to be that the govt's own choice of title is wrong. Apart from being a breach of policy, that approach is a recipe for madness; there are countless other cases to argue, such as the Dept of The Environent, whose main responsibility for two decades was actually local govt; the environment was a small part of its brief.
    I could see a case for a rule of one-job-title-per-category, but the roles of a dept are simply way too fluid to base the decision on role. If we go down that path, the result will be be masses of detailed analysis of the role of each govt dept throughout history so that we can split categories in all sots of ways. That would e.g. mean subcatting the Home Office into dozens of fragments as it shed functions. That would be a pain for navigation, which after all is the main point of categories
    So I will take it to a full CFD ... with regret, because it all seems like a huge drain on editorial time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    @BrownHairedGirl: I explicitly said my objection was not based on analysing the roles. As you say, there's no point in micromanaging it, it makes sense to have people who have broadly had the same job to all be in the same category, on WP:SMALLCAT grounds if nothing else. The problem is then what name to use - and I am suggesting using the WP:COMMONNAME for the job. As a Brit and former British civil servant, it just seems weird, illogical and wrong to categorise people like Alan Johnson and Virginia Bottomley as being Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care.Le Deluge (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Le Deluge: It is not, and never has been, practice to categorise govt ministers by COMMONNAME. See Category:British Secretaries of State, where in each case the formal title is used. As I wrote above, either split the category on the change of name, or use the current title.
    I have created and populated Category:Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    That seems a reasonable solution to the complexities discussed above. Rathfelder (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Armbrust: would you now consider withdrawing your opposition to the C2B renaming of the historical category from "UK" to "United Kingdom"? – Fayenatic London 13:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
On hold pending other discussion[edit]
Moved to full discussion[edit]
these Republic of Macedonia cats are all at a full discussion: WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_16#North_Macedonia.

Ready for deletion[edit]

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Empty categories awaiting deletion[edit]

The categories listed below have been identified as empty using {{db-catempty}}, and will be speedily deleted after 7 days unless populated. (Note: Due to technical limitations, all contents of the category may not be displayed; view the category directly to see all contents.)

Bug report: lately it regularly happens that categories are staying here for unlimited time instead of being deleted after 7 days. More details see this discussion and this follow-up discussion.