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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants that serve New York-style pizza ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I do not believe that starting a categorization scheme of restaurants by menu is a good idea. In most cases, it would lead to vast overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Pizzerias in the United States, of which this is a sub-category. I quite agree that restaurants-by-menu is a very bad idea for categorisation, because it would rapidly lead to massive category-clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment serving NY-style pizza has nothing to do with being in the US. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify this should not be categorized under US pizzerias, since the two concepts have nothing to do with each other, you don't even need to be a pizzeria to serve NY-style pizza. 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list is scarcely better than the category as current restaurant menus are difficult to verify in reliable sources.- choster (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Both the current articels are Pizzerias in NY city. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per BrownHairedGirl - all the articles categorised here are in the United States, yet all are not already categorised in the proposed, and logical, target. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:45, 16 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy deleted as empty for over 4 days (since creation) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colleges in Paschim Medinipur District of West Bengal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Royals to Category:People educated at Royal Wolverhampton School

Nominator's rationale: Rename to eliminate ambiguity, adopt plain English, avoid obscure WP:JARGON and fit the convention of Category:People educated by school in England. This incorporates the general principle of WP:NCCAT that category names should normally correspond to the name of a Wikipedia article (in this case, the article on the school).
This is an extreme case of a piece of inhouse jargon which may make sense to those who adopt the terminology for use within their own group, but is utterly useless to anyone else. A plain English reading of "Old Royals" is that it refers to either elderly living members of a royal family, or to royalty from ancient times; those interested in buildings could reasonably assume that refers to some of the various "Old Royal" buildings. Even if the reader is familiar with the "Old Fooian" usage for alumni of some schools, the term is so ambiguous as to be useless. Royal School (disambiguation) lists 12 schools to which this could refer, but in fact it refers to none of them. The school is not in the list of 7 at Royal Grammar School (disambiguation), nor is it in the list of 8 at Royal High School (disambiguation). This category is for none of those 27 Royal schools, it's for the Royal Wolverhampton School. Even if it was in one of those dab lists, how on earth are readers or editors going to know which of those 27 schools calls its former pupils "old royals" without any geographical qualifier?
Categories exist as a navigational device, and this misleading category name is an obstacle to navigation. The only conceivable purpose for naming a category in this way is to teach the reader new terminology, an approach which is specifically deprecated by WP:JARGON. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I realise that some editors are never going to bend on this issue, but I think this suggestion is in line with a reasonable compromise that has been widely implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a term that is easily understandable for all, not obscure jargon and per all of these CFDs from the last year. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Good Ol’factory and it is time for uniformity. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename – the present name is obscure and ambiguous. When the Birmingham Post wish to describe Steve Brown, they state that he was "educated at Royal Wolverhampton School" as they are fully aware that calling someone an "Old Royal" will convey no meaning whatever to their average reader. Oculi (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People educated at Royal Wolverhampton School, the current name can create confusion. The category page can include the sentence, "Former pupils of Royal Wolverhampton School are known as Old Royals." FurrySings (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename this has absolutely nothing to do with Old Royals (former royalty, royal lines). 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• rename - Titles (of articles or categories) should be in plain language to help readers grasp the content; particularly readers who may not be familiar with obscure jargon, or with conventions specific to one country. --Noleander (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No way to know what this contains without context. This one is especially bad, since it appears to contain royalty or maybe coins or lord knows what.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• CErtainly rename -- This case is highly ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to avoid ambiguity.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 15 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. The subcategories do need to be reviewed and cleaned up. If said review leads one to believe that deletion is necessary, those categories will need to be nominated individually and brought here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ingredients by country to Category:Ingredients by nationality

Nominator's rationale: more accurate. Note that I created this category today. Can we do a speedy? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy I'm for speedy. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcatgorisation any one ingredient could feature in the cuisine of hundreds of countries. So far potato is only in 2 (Indian and Puerto Rican) but it is very popular worldwide! Tim! (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered deletion when I came across one of the entries but then, as we can see with the 18 entires in this category, I came across others of a similar ilk. So would you want all the sub-categories deleted as well? Lack of full population of all of the entries that belong in a category is a very common problem. Hmmm, after thinking about it a bit more I think the sub-categories would probably be better served with actual articles instead. That would be picking a fight with the inclusionists who hang out here!! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with the subcategories. Inclusion is too subjective. What exactly makes an ingredient Greek, Cambodian or Senegalese? This could also lead to massive category clutter. As Tim points out the countries that don't use the potato in their cuisine are probably a minority but other examples of the same potential problem include pasta, black pepper or even salt. The most populated subcategory is Category:Vietnamese ingredients and is telling I think. It includes cabbage, oyster mushroom, lentil to name just a few. None of these are specifically Vietnamese and they wouldn't be out of place in the category of French or German cuisine. I think this shows that this isn't really a defining characteristic unless the ingredient is very specifically associated to a small set of traditional cuisines. Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably delete - Certainly Do not rename - These are about the cuisine of countries, not nationaliities. Of course my local chinese takeaway is run by Chinese expatiates or (more likely) descendants - probably from Hong Kong New Territories, just as most Indian Restaurants in UK are run by Bangladeshis from the Sylheti community, but they are offering the cuisine of India. This is essentially the problem of categorising plants and animals by country, because their distribution does not match with political boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So did you want all of the sub-cats deleted as well? Note that with one exception they are for a country but that can also be construed as a nationality. I don't mind if they are all deleted. The topics should be covered by the cuisine articles for the different nationalities. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:53, 14 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food and drink introduced in 1992 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and an unnecessary level of categorisation. Also not part of an existing categorising scheme. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Per year categories should only be used if part of a wider scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:1992 introductions. Tim! (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: category creator has made the correction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed rename: From Category:People educated at St. Mary's Catholic High School,Menston to Category:People educated at St. Mary's Catholic High School, Menston

Nominator's rationale: There is a typo. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per speedy criteria C2.A. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename ASAP. FurrySings (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: speedy close. There is no category to discuss, and it appears that the nominator wished to raise concerns about the content of the article Poonch District (Azad Kashmir). The appropriate venue for that discussion is the article's talk page, Talk:Poonch District (Azad Kashmir). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Poonch District (Azad Kashmir) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: ==Lohar Dynasty==

This section is totally irrelevent and there is no credible information about lohar dynasty. This whole area infact has no traces of lohars or their dynasty. It must be deleted from this section. Please comment. riz 14:23, 12 February 2012 (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 all. However, I'm concerned there's been some data loss from the Events tree, so I'm going to process this as a merge and then remove anything that doesn't belong in the Events tree.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happenings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Vague inclusion criteria and does not relate to the article happening which is "is a performance, event or situation meant to be considered art, usually as performance art". Contents look like they should be in Category:Events instead. Tim! (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Happenings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Happenings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)added per comments Tim! (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This nomination should be expanded to include Category:Happenings by year and Category:Lists of happenings which were created at the same time. I inquired three days ago on the talk page of the creator of these categories about the same issue which nominator focuses on in this CfD but have so far received no reply. __meco (talk) 09:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, including the subcats Category:Happenings by year and Category:Lists of happenings. Most of this is a duplicate of Category:Events, and I don't see any purpose for the rest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and BHG. Pretty redundant to the Category:Events tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and BHG. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete together with Category:Happenings by year and Category:Lists of happenings per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Category:events 70.24.247.54 (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Including all three. I've stated my opinion elsewhere. __meco (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:events which seems to be much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this is fall out from the decision on the Category:Events discussion. If deleted, we probably need to revisit that keep decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2012 (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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename for now. The precise name of the awards may need to be clarified in a future CFD but for now let's clarify the categories are for the works not the creators. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Nebula Award Winners for Best Novelette to Category:Nebula Award for Best Novelette winning works
• Category:Nebula Award Winners for Best Novel to Category:Nebula Award for Best Novel winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Related Book to Category:Hugo Award for Best Related Book winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Novella to Category:Hugo Award for Best Novella winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Novelette to Category:Hugo Award for Best Novelette winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Novel to Category:Hugo Award for Best Novel winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Non-Fiction Book to Category:Hugo Award for Best Non-Fiction Book winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form to Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form to Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Long Form winning works
• Category:Hugo Award Winners for Best Dramatic Presentation to Category:Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation winning works

Nominator's rationale: Similar to yesterday's nominations, these are designed to keep the name of the award intact and disambiguate from the creators of the works.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - The current names can create confusion. FurrySings (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• To be closed according to the precedent mentioned please. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The point that people rather than works (books, films, etc) win awards may be argued. Granting that point and the move from "Winners" to "winning works", I oppose the proposal in favor of

Category:Hugo Award winning works, Best Novel

Category:Hugo Award-winning works, Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form

(two examples because I am indifferent re the hyphen that others support), and elsewhere,

National Book Award winning works, Young People's Literature

and so on. Along these lines, the names of some articles and lists may be changed too.

Explanation My opposition is tentative (what am I missing?) but firmly based on these observations.

As I said re ["yesterday's nominations"], I recognize that this proposal (and some in that set) keeps intact the titles or names of wikipedia articles such as Hugo Award for Best Novel and National Book Award for Young People's Literature but I doubt that those are the names of the awards. They may be coined by newspapers or wikipedia editors —as one might coin any of "Olympic Basketball winners", "Olympic Gold Medalists, Men's Basketball", or "Olympic gold medalists in basketball" to head a table in the sports section.

At thehugoawards.org I have viewed the "Hugo Award Trophies" photographs for every tenth year 2011 to 1961. Unfortunately I can read only the latter, with helpful reference to Hugo Award for Best Short Story.

Author Poul Anderson is not named.

The same official website does make clear that category names officially include "Best". Contrary to the 1961 engraving quoted above, however, the website gives "Short Fiction" rather than "Best Short Fiction" (eg see 1961 Hugo Awards). (perhaps because "short fiction" did not refer clearly to one work, or was not considered a countable noun)

The official "Hugo Award Categories" puts parentheses rather than commas in complex category names: "Best Dramatic Presentation (Short Form)" rather than "Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form".

Among the current Hugos that recognize particular works (the first eight as listed there), only the first four use the word "for", and none make it part of the name of the award. The fifth says "to a work", the sixth provides a sentence fragment, the last two imply "given [to] a dramatized production" rather than to any artist or manager.

The WSFS Constitution, Article 3 - Hugo Awards, defines all categories by sentence fragments that refer to works (for the first eight of 15 awards). The constitution does not specify the person who accepts or declines a nomination (illustrator of a graphic novel? director of a dramatic presentation?). The literary and dramatic works are defined, the responsible people are not.

One award presented alongside Hugos has a long and specific name, "John W. Campbell Award for Best New Writer". Regarding the Hugos per se, I don't find at the Hugo website so much as "Hugo Award" and "Best Novel" on the same horizontal line of any page display. Category names such as "Best Novel" consistently appear alone, as heading at the beginning of the line. (Compare the 1961 engraving quoted above.)

Some award-winning fiction has been collected under the titles Hugo Winners and New Hugo Winners with volume numbers (i infer hastily).

Some of these observations imply that works rather than people may be considered "winners" of most Hugo Awards.

All of these observations show that "Hugo Award winners ..." does keep the name of the award intact.

--P64 (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2012 (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.