< February 18	February 20 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category: Chicago architecture into Category:Chicago school (architecture).

Nominator's rationale: a one-article orphan category. Hugo999 (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator as obvious duplicate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 19 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This is a category of a genre I have never heard applied to films. There is no definition of the genre in the category, there is no article for it, and browsing through google only related Survival horror to video games. Not films. I propose we delete this category. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, and as original research. I have just checked all 22 of the articles currently in the category, and none of them includes any reference at all to justify their inclusion in this category. The Thing (1982 film) is the only one of the articles to include the phrase in the body text, and in that case it refers not the film but to associated game: The Thing (video game). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 20 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Destruction to ?

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete or clarify the introduction or split. Not sure if this is the correct name or if a better introduction would help. Deletion is a valid alternative. The current introduction states This category deals with the partial or total annihilation of entities. I'm not sure that is clear and objective. In any case from looking at the contents, what do road debris, paper shredder, shelf life, weapons‎, wear and tear and lost works‎ have defining in common? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a disparate collection of subjects that should not be linked by a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alan Liefting. Far too vague to make a viable category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the end of the world as we know it... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 20 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/Upmerge as detailed by RevelationDirect. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two entries. One entry is a person and I don't think he would want to be considered as a free public outdoor meal, and the the other can possibly be added to Category:Free meals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Upmerge: Delete for Earl Best, upmerge for Food Not Bombs per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:32, 20 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 rename C2C/C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cummins College of Engineering for Women to Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: MKSSS's Cummins College of Engineering for Women

Nominator's rationale: To match head article MKSSS's Cummins College of Engineering for Women and per convention of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Please go ahead and rename it. BPositive (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should go under Wikipedians by alma mater:India. Thanks! BPositive (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support but we may need an alumni category in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 21 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians by Clan: Clan Elliot to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: This user category tries to encompass a category hierarchy in its name, a practice which is deprecated by WP:NCCAT: Don't write the category structure in names. Example: "Monarchs", not "People - Monarchs".A search reveals no other Wikipedians-by-clan categories, and while the simplest naming format would be Category:Clan Elliot Wikipedians, the convention of Category:Wikipedians is for "Wikipedian(s)" to be first word in the title. Any suggestions? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)12:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS I have just spotted that Category:Wikipedians has other sub-cats which encompass a category hierarchy in their name (see e.g. the subcats of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater. Is there a consensus for following that format here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)13:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, as unecessary for the WP project, and as a waste of time. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we don't categorise bios by clan (or by family or by surname, apart from a few exceptions) so I don't see why we should classify wikipedians by clan. And there is no Category:Clan Elliot anyway. (The name seems a reasonable extrapolation from the 'alma mater' example.) Oculi (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to deletion. My intention in nominating this category was to clarify whether the naming format was acceptable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this would foster collaboration. Pichpich (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Saw this a while ago and have been meaning to nominate it for deletion myself. VegaDark (talk) 09:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oculi; and in response to BHG's original question: the alma mater user categories are the only ones, as far as I know, which follow that format. The reason that format was chosen several years ago was to bypass naming issues concerning 'Wikipedian alumni of Foo' versus 'Wikipedian Foo alumni' or 'Wikipedian Foo pupils' versus 'Wikipedian Old Fooians', and so on. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Black Falcon. Steam5 (talk) 02:19, 26 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a userspace category for Presidentman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Do we still permit categories for individual editors to organise their subpages? (I seem to recall lots of them being deleted). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose While all the pages may be in my userspace, RPOTD is a joint effort between multiple users. (See list here). - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 15:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What list? Your "See list here" is a redlink.

In any case, if all the pages are in your own userspace I don't see why they need a category. You can get a list of all your userpages by using Special:Prefixindex, and a more selective list by this sort of technique. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete – categories are for articles in article space, or for categories, eg eponymous ones. Oculi (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This user claims to be providing a "random picture of the day". I cannot see that this is a proper use of category space. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether it is even a proper use of userspace, because it seems to me to be as unrelated to collaboration or encyclopedia-building as the coffee lounge, but that's an MFD issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Peterkingiron and Oculi. Steam5 (talk) 02:18, 26 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: snow keep. (NAC) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Brier to Category:Tim Hortons Brier

Propose renaming Category:Brier champions to Category:Tim Hortons Brier champions

Nominator's rationale: The main article is Tim Hortons Brier, and the event is known under this name since 2005. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 09:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Based on the article, I think maybe the old name should have been kept under common name. But, since the lead article was renamed, I'll go along with the cat renames. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This has had many title sponsors, but is referred to as "The Brier". There's even several books about "The Brier". The category should be inclusive and not exclusive of Briers not sponsored by Tim Hortons. Since the Labatt Brier is the title sponsor form for more Briers than Tim Hortons, the usage of sponsor names when not necessary is less accurate, and less concise than the category should be. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that moving the article to The Brier, was reverted because "This issue has been discussed before, and the decision was to keep the sponsor name in the article, because the sponsor name is usually always used when referring to the event.". Why isn't this than accepted for the name of the category? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Given that there are 2 (out of a possible 48) Macdonald Brier, 13 (out of a possible 21) Labatt Brier, 4 Nokia Brier and 9 Tim Hortons Brier articles it would not really be a useful rename. What happens if after 2013 Tim Hortons no longer sponsor the Brier? Will the category then be renamed again? A better idea would be to sub-categorise the Brier by sponsors. You would then have four sub-categories by sponsor. As to the Category:Brier champions, did all 71 people play in the Tim Hortons sponsored brier? If not then sub-categorise them as well. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What a non-sense. Categorizing by sponsorname would certainly be WP:OC, the category should use the most recent name of the event and if the article is renamed, than the category follows it. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 12:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Categorisation should follow the WP:COMMONNAME, which may include the sponsor's name, but in this case does not. There have been two formal move discussions at Talk:Tim Hortons Brier: one in 2005 which reached no consensus, and one in 2006 with only 3 !votes If a further discussion establishes a consensus for a particular name, then I'll support aligning the category name to that choice, but for now "the Brier" looks like the right choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category is for the full history of The Brier, regardless of who sponsored any particular year's bonspiel. Timmie's has only sponsored The Brier since 2005. PK T(alk) 13:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category is different from the event article. The category will encompass all of the events, while the article should be at the event's current name. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as well. I note that many major US football college bowl main articles and categories do not follow the name of the current sponsor, and certainly the Brier's history long predates Tim's. It's different than the Scott's/Scottie's Tournament of Hearts, which was created by Scott Paper. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 20 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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_3#Category:Arrests_of_journalists. - jc37 01:22, 3 March 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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. With a population of 1,167, I don't believe this village has the potential for growth to merit an eponymous category. I also don't believe there's any exception to WP:OC for settlements. Based on what I've seen in Category:Villages in Canada, this does seem to be OCAT: there is but one other eponymous village category, Category:Stirling, Alberta, and it is a populated place that is a National Historic Site of Canada, along with Quebec City and Louisbourg, and does not offer a precedent for the nominated category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Dorchester, New Brunswick seems unlikely to generate enough articles to justify a category. Oculi (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oculi. Steam5 (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the existing articles can, and already are covered in the various subcategories of Category:Westmorland County, New Brunswick, that should be sufficent.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 07:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1167 potential members.. hmmm. Rich Farmbrough, 14:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. While any populated place, regardless of size, can have such a category if we have enough articles related to that place to justify one, it's evident that we don't have that here — I even scanned Dorchester's "What links here", and didn't find any additional topics that could be appropriately added besides the two that are already present. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 24 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.

February 19

Chicago architecture

Category:Survival horror films

Category:Destruction

Category:Free public outdoor meals

Category:Cummins College of Engineering for Women

Category:Wikipedians by Clan: Clan Elliot

Category:RPOTD articles

Category:The Brier

Category:Arrests of journalists

Category:Dorchester, New Brunswick