The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Matches the tree above it and there's a plausible non-Wikipedia category that could be here. Alternatively, this might reasonably be a
WP:SMALLCAT and so it's more appropriate to upmerge.
Izno (
talk) 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disney on Ice
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Medical and health organizations
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.
Its very unusual for these sorts of organizations to operate in more than one country. MSF is very unusual in that respect. It's a very highly regulated environment. I'd rather standardise the other way.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
"The World Health Organization operates 150 country offices in six different regions." There are plenty of health organizations that operate in many countries. Red Cross, Save the Children,
George Institute for Global Health. In any case the format in every country category is 'based in Foo' and editors should follow this. (The great majority of the subcats of
Category:Medical and health organizations by country were created by Rathfelder, using 'in' or 'based in' seemingly at random. There were 21 using 'based in' created on 6 Apr 2016, and rather more using 'in'
the very next day, but not consistently.)
Oculi (
talk) 22:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency, "based in" is the usual format throughout the organizations tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Aeni by date
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 or merge as indicated.
MER-C 13:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Extensive web of categories containing a mere 19 articles (by my count) between them. We simply don't have enough content to justify this level of categorisation. Articles can be recategorised in either
Category:South Korean animated films or
Category:South Korean animated television series as appropriate, if they aren't in there already. There is also the problem that "aeni" seems like a rather obscure term, unlike "anime".
PC78 (
talk) 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I've made a note above of what would need upmerging to where. Some of the articles are already appropriately categorised.
PC78 (
talk) 15:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Have also added
Category:1999 aeni which slipped through the net due to it not being categorised with the others.
PC78 (
talk) 18:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:XXXTentacion-stub
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A stub for a specific person seems unlikely to have enough content to reach the 60+ stubs needed to justify such a stub template/category. There's only 1 currently tagged right now. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Culinary dishes
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. –
FayenaticLondon 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. All dishes are culinary and anything in this overly-broad category will be able to be diffused into an existent food sub-category.Mutt Lunker (
talk) 12:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep in principle as a valid
WP:SUPERCAT. I agree that all articles currently in the category should be (and probably already are) diffused into a sub-category such as
Category:Chicken dishes. But having a higher-level category that contains other food-dish subcategories is useful. Unfortunately, the user who created the category has incorrectly added several hundred articles directly to the category. I requested that they fix this, but they haven't done so - though at least they stopped adding more. Also it doesn't currently contain any subcategories. Maybe the most practical way to fix the problem then would be to delete it so a bot can remove it from all the articles, without prejudice against re-creating it with only the appropriate sub-categories when that's complete. --
IamNotU (
talk) 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Category:Cuisine and
Category:Food and drink have long existed and I imagine most of the dishes in the new category are already, or could be, diffused to these. I can't see this new one fulfilling a purpose as a supercategory that these and other existent categories don't.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 14:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Not sure I understand the objection. It seems like a logical top-level category for all categories of dishes (culinary, as opposed to porcelain dishes or satellite dishes) that are not in any higher "dishes" category. It's more specific than just
Category:Food, of which it's already a subcategory. It's not overly broad, currently it would include only
Category:Meat dishes,
Category:Vegetable dishes,
Category:Dairy dishes,
Category:Nut dishes,
Category:Bread dishes,
Category:Cereal dishes, and maybe a couple of others. It wouldn't include any articles about dishes themselves. There doesn't seem to be a clear way otherwise to get that category grouping. --
IamNotU (
talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Ok, you're right I guess I missed that, seems to accomplish the same thing. Well, it wouldn't include things like
Category:Ancient dishes or
Category:Stuffed dishes for example, but maybe that's not important... --
IamNotU (
talk) 19:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Your latter point is making wonder if there is a point to the category after all. Again though, it should be populated largely, probaby entirely, by such subcategories rather than individual articles.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support deletion per above discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
delete . As a subcategory of Food it is pointless. I doubt its usefulness in any context.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Having pondered this further, I can in fact see it fitting in to a logical hierarchy and serving a purpose. Above this category, the Food category covers raw materials and individual ingredients as well as the dishes made of them. Below it, there are numerous sub-categories of (culinary) dishes, as noted above, based on a variety of diverse characterstics, not just major ingredient but form/construction and historical period, amongst other things. It would fit so: Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>Culinary dishes>(existing subcategories of dishes).
Looking at the way that food subcategories are structured currently, there is a lot of inconsistency as to how they are broken down. This could help bring a bit of order. No?
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 22:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
As nobody has disabused of the views expressed immediately above, I'll alter my position to that of keep.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 22:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Again, the main ingredient of a dish is but one subordinate aspect of the categorisation of dishes as a whole. As is e.g. ancientness, that they are stuffed.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 08:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
We seem to be aiming at the same goal of having a subcategory of
Category:Cuisine consisting of all culinary dishes/prepared foods which in turn has subcategories that group dishes by particular characteristics (main ingredient, that they are ancient, that they are stuffed etc.).
It occurs to me that the issue may be consistency of naming for the hierarchy. Is that what needs to be addressed?
We have Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>(the level under discussion)>(subcats such as Prepared foods by main ingredient, ancient dishes, stuffed dishes)
These could be:
Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>Culinary dishes>((Culinary) Dishes by main ingredient, Ancient dishes, Stuffed dishes etc)
Or
Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>Prepared foods>(Prepared foods by main ingredient, Ancient prepared foods, Stuffed prepared foods etc)
If a more consistently-named hierarchy using the term dish is preferred, we place the subcategories into
Category:Culinary dishes, renaming them to conform if required, and we remove the plethora of individual articles therein, which will already be diffused to these subcategories anyway.
If a more consistent-named hierarchy using the term food is preferred, we delete ‘’Category:Culinary dishes’’, create a new subcategory of
Category:Cuisine:
Category: Prepared foods and place the subcategories therein, renaming them to conform if required.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 23:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Marcocapelle. The present category heirarchy could be improved, but it needs more thought and this just gets in the way of a proper discussion.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Very good points made here, thanks. Looks like there is support for an "all dishes" category, probably a subcategory of
Category:Cuisine, that's more inclusive than
Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient, which could be either "Category:Culinary dishes" or "Category:Prepared foods". There does seem to be a bit more discussion required about the usage of "prepared foods" vs. "dishes", etc. I don't mind deleting
Category:Culinary dishes for now to fix the current problems with it, as long as it's understood that it - or something similar - might be re-created following further discussion. --
IamNotU (
talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant and indiscriminate. This appears to be a category containing all dishes everywhere.
JIP |
Talk 10:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
JIP, how is that a problem? We have for example
Category:Rivers, for all rivers everywhere: "This category is for subcategories for all types of streams, e.g., branch, brook, beck, burn, creek, "crick", gill (occasionally ghyll), kill, lick, rill, river, syke, bayou, rivulet, streamage, wash, run or runnel." The category for all dishes has the same function. The only problem is that some user has mistakenly added a large number of articles directly to the category which need to be removed; it should generally only contain subcategories and not individual dishes, just as the Rivers category doesn't contain individual rivers (at least it shouldn't - looks like that category needs some cleanup). Although all dishes and rivers can be
diffused into some subcategory, that doesn't make the top supercategory redundant or indiscriminate. That's how it's supposed to be. --
IamNotU (
talk) 12:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Foxbridge
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Seems odd to have a category for horses sired (or "grandsired") by a stallion.
Man o' War doesn't have one.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 08:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor inductees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The
International Bluegrass Music Hall of Fame is is a riverfront museum on the Ohio River in Kentucky. The articles aren't consistent with how the award is handled: sometimes it's mentioned in the body, sometimes in the lede and sometimes not at all. Grammies and other hall of fames are often mentioned as well and most of the recipients of this award were prominent long before the Hall of Fame started. This award doesn't seem generally defining. (One clear exception is
Pete Kuykendall who helped found the organization but that's not a good basis for a category.) The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
DElete as OCAWARD: Listify if necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States Bicycling Hall of Fame inductees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The
United States Bicycling Hall of Fame is a museum in Davis, California. The award is usually mentioned in passing in the articles with other honours in the body of the articles and, if an award is in the intro, it's usually an Olympic medal. Many of the recipients were active long before the organization existed. This award doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
DElete as OCAWARD: Listify if necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete no one is notable for being inducted; they're notable for whatever achievements got them inducted.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Matches the tree above it and there's a plausible non-Wikipedia category that could be here. Alternatively, this might reasonably be a
WP:SMALLCAT and so it's more appropriate to upmerge.
Izno (
talk) 23:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Disney on Ice
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Medical and health organizations
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.
Its very unusual for these sorts of organizations to operate in more than one country. MSF is very unusual in that respect. It's a very highly regulated environment. I'd rather standardise the other way.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
"The World Health Organization operates 150 country offices in six different regions." There are plenty of health organizations that operate in many countries. Red Cross, Save the Children,
George Institute for Global Health. In any case the format in every country category is 'based in Foo' and editors should follow this. (The great majority of the subcats of
Category:Medical and health organizations by country were created by Rathfelder, using 'in' or 'based in' seemingly at random. There were 21 using 'based in' created on 6 Apr 2016, and rather more using 'in'
the very next day, but not consistently.)
Oculi (
talk) 22:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support for consistency, "based in" is the usual format throughout the organizations tree.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Aeni by date
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 or merge as indicated.
MER-C 13:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Extensive web of categories containing a mere 19 articles (by my count) between them. We simply don't have enough content to justify this level of categorisation. Articles can be recategorised in either
Category:South Korean animated films or
Category:South Korean animated television series as appropriate, if they aren't in there already. There is also the problem that "aeni" seems like a rather obscure term, unlike "anime".
PC78 (
talk) 17:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I've made a note above of what would need upmerging to where. Some of the articles are already appropriately categorised.
PC78 (
talk) 15:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Have also added
Category:1999 aeni which slipped through the net due to it not being categorised with the others.
PC78 (
talk) 18:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Template:XXXTentacion-stub
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: A stub for a specific person seems unlikely to have enough content to reach the 60+ stubs needed to justify such a stub template/category. There's only 1 currently tagged right now. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Culinary dishes
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. –
FayenaticLondon 08:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. All dishes are culinary and anything in this overly-broad category will be able to be diffused into an existent food sub-category.Mutt Lunker (
talk) 12:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep in principle as a valid
WP:SUPERCAT. I agree that all articles currently in the category should be (and probably already are) diffused into a sub-category such as
Category:Chicken dishes. But having a higher-level category that contains other food-dish subcategories is useful. Unfortunately, the user who created the category has incorrectly added several hundred articles directly to the category. I requested that they fix this, but they haven't done so - though at least they stopped adding more. Also it doesn't currently contain any subcategories. Maybe the most practical way to fix the problem then would be to delete it so a bot can remove it from all the articles, without prejudice against re-creating it with only the appropriate sub-categories when that's complete. --
IamNotU (
talk) 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Category:Cuisine and
Category:Food and drink have long existed and I imagine most of the dishes in the new category are already, or could be, diffused to these. I can't see this new one fulfilling a purpose as a supercategory that these and other existent categories don't.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 14:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Not sure I understand the objection. It seems like a logical top-level category for all categories of dishes (culinary, as opposed to porcelain dishes or satellite dishes) that are not in any higher "dishes" category. It's more specific than just
Category:Food, of which it's already a subcategory. It's not overly broad, currently it would include only
Category:Meat dishes,
Category:Vegetable dishes,
Category:Dairy dishes,
Category:Nut dishes,
Category:Bread dishes,
Category:Cereal dishes, and maybe a couple of others. It wouldn't include any articles about dishes themselves. There doesn't seem to be a clear way otherwise to get that category grouping. --
IamNotU (
talk) 15:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Ok, you're right I guess I missed that, seems to accomplish the same thing. Well, it wouldn't include things like
Category:Ancient dishes or
Category:Stuffed dishes for example, but maybe that's not important... --
IamNotU (
talk) 19:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Your latter point is making wonder if there is a point to the category after all. Again though, it should be populated largely, probaby entirely, by such subcategories rather than individual articles.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Support deletion per above discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
delete . As a subcategory of Food it is pointless. I doubt its usefulness in any context.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Having pondered this further, I can in fact see it fitting in to a logical hierarchy and serving a purpose. Above this category, the Food category covers raw materials and individual ingredients as well as the dishes made of them. Below it, there are numerous sub-categories of (culinary) dishes, as noted above, based on a variety of diverse characterstics, not just major ingredient but form/construction and historical period, amongst other things. It would fit so: Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>Culinary dishes>(existing subcategories of dishes).
Looking at the way that food subcategories are structured currently, there is a lot of inconsistency as to how they are broken down. This could help bring a bit of order. No?
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 22:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
As nobody has disabused of the views expressed immediately above, I'll alter my position to that of keep.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 22:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Again, the main ingredient of a dish is but one subordinate aspect of the categorisation of dishes as a whole. As is e.g. ancientness, that they are stuffed.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 08:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
We seem to be aiming at the same goal of having a subcategory of
Category:Cuisine consisting of all culinary dishes/prepared foods which in turn has subcategories that group dishes by particular characteristics (main ingredient, that they are ancient, that they are stuffed etc.).
It occurs to me that the issue may be consistency of naming for the hierarchy. Is that what needs to be addressed?
We have Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>(the level under discussion)>(subcats such as Prepared foods by main ingredient, ancient dishes, stuffed dishes)
These could be:
Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>Culinary dishes>((Culinary) Dishes by main ingredient, Ancient dishes, Stuffed dishes etc)
Or
Food and drink>Food>Cuisine>Prepared foods>(Prepared foods by main ingredient, Ancient prepared foods, Stuffed prepared foods etc)
If a more consistently-named hierarchy using the term dish is preferred, we place the subcategories into
Category:Culinary dishes, renaming them to conform if required, and we remove the plethora of individual articles therein, which will already be diffused to these subcategories anyway.
If a more consistent-named hierarchy using the term food is preferred, we delete ‘’Category:Culinary dishes’’, create a new subcategory of
Category:Cuisine:
Category: Prepared foods and place the subcategories therein, renaming them to conform if required.
Mutt Lunker (
talk) 23:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I agree with
Marcocapelle. The present category heirarchy could be improved, but it needs more thought and this just gets in the way of a proper discussion.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Very good points made here, thanks. Looks like there is support for an "all dishes" category, probably a subcategory of
Category:Cuisine, that's more inclusive than
Category:Prepared foods by main ingredient, which could be either "Category:Culinary dishes" or "Category:Prepared foods". There does seem to be a bit more discussion required about the usage of "prepared foods" vs. "dishes", etc. I don't mind deleting
Category:Culinary dishes for now to fix the current problems with it, as long as it's understood that it - or something similar - might be re-created following further discussion. --
IamNotU (
talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant and indiscriminate. This appears to be a category containing all dishes everywhere.
JIP |
Talk 10:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
JIP, how is that a problem? We have for example
Category:Rivers, for all rivers everywhere: "This category is for subcategories for all types of streams, e.g., branch, brook, beck, burn, creek, "crick", gill (occasionally ghyll), kill, lick, rill, river, syke, bayou, rivulet, streamage, wash, run or runnel." The category for all dishes has the same function. The only problem is that some user has mistakenly added a large number of articles directly to the category which need to be removed; it should generally only contain subcategories and not individual dishes, just as the Rivers category doesn't contain individual rivers (at least it shouldn't - looks like that category needs some cleanup). Although all dishes and rivers can be
diffused into some subcategory, that doesn't make the top supercategory redundant or indiscriminate. That's how it's supposed to be. --
IamNotU (
talk) 12:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Foxbridge
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Seems odd to have a category for horses sired (or "grandsired") by a stallion.
Man o' War doesn't have one.
Clarityfiend (
talk) 08:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:International Bluegrass Music Hall of Honor inductees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The
International Bluegrass Music Hall of Fame is is a riverfront museum on the Ohio River in Kentucky. The articles aren't consistent with how the award is handled: sometimes it's mentioned in the body, sometimes in the lede and sometimes not at all. Grammies and other hall of fames are often mentioned as well and most of the recipients of this award were prominent long before the Hall of Fame started. This award doesn't seem generally defining. (One clear exception is
Pete Kuykendall who helped found the organization but that's not a good basis for a category.) The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
DElete as OCAWARD: Listify if necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:United States Bicycling Hall of Fame inductees
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The
United States Bicycling Hall of Fame is a museum in Davis, California. The award is usually mentioned in passing in the articles with other honours in the body of the articles and, if an award is in the intro, it's usually an Olympic medal. Many of the recipients were active long before the organization existed. This award doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)reply
DElete as OCAWARD: Listify if necessary.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete no one is notable for being inducted; they're notable for whatever achievements got them inducted.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.