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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wonderland albums to Category:Wonderland (band) albums

Propose renaming Category:Wonderland singles to Category:Wonderland (band) songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming these categories to match Wonderland (band). Since there are several albums named Wonderland by different artists, a film soundtrack by that name, and a musical by that name, it makes sense to disambiguate for clarity in this case. I also propose making the "singles" category a standard "songs" category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 7 June 2011 (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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Scientific societies to Category:Learned societies

Nominator's rationale: scientific society redirects to learned society. Unless someone can show how the two differ (preferably by turning the redirect into a sourced article), these categories should be merged. Rd232 ^talk 20:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep learned society covers all acedemic topics; scientific society covers just those in the science area, and is a proper subset of learned society. Seems fine to me, and the absence of an article causes me no problem. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a proper daughter category of Category:Learned societies, particularly since it is quite a large category. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:18, 9 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anime DVD covers to Category:Anime video covers

Propose renaming Category:DVD covers to Category:Video covers

Nominator's rationale: With Blue-ray Discs becoming more prevalent as a video media, the old name of the category no longer appropriate. Creating separate categories for other video media would be overcategorization. Having one category for anime video covers is preferred over multiple categories. —Farix (t | c) 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – what about the parent Category:DVD covers? Occuli (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It should be allowed to include VHS, Beta, VCD and LD covers, not everything is on DVD. 65.94.45.185 (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Can we merge a discussion to Rename Category:DVD covers to Category:Video covers?Curb Chain (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the discussion.Curb Chain (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Current name is overly specific. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2011 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sources of Hungarian history ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Whatever this is, it isn't a category. 71.232.99.144 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a category and even if we made it a category, it would be overcategorization.Curb Chain (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could possibly be turned into a reasonable article, but it would need an awful lot of cleanup. LeSnail (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2011 (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: No consensus. Round and round the issue goes, with some of the opposition only to the UK categories but others to all nominated. Not sure of the best next step. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Poland to Category:Defunct railway stations in Poland

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Norway to Category:Defunct railway stations in Norway

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Ireland to Category:Defunct railway stations in Ireland

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Canada to Category:Defunct railway stations in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Australia to Category:Defunct railway stations in Australia

Nominator's rationale: In this nomination which I closed yesterday, there wasn't any consensus between "Defunct" and "Disused." And if you looked only at the number of categories that use each, you'd think the preponderance of evidence was on the side of "Disused." But that's misleading, because if you look at Category:Defunct railway stations, you will see that the majority of countries have categories beginning with "Defunct," a word that begins many, many categories on Wikipedia. But "Disused" begins only railway station categories, and only in these six countries (one of which, Poland, I added to the list in my close). So I'd argue for "Defunct" as the standard.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose that for the United Kingdom; neutral for others. "Defunct" is just not a term we use in the UK. BTW this has been discussed before, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 1#Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom (where the proposal was to rename Category:Disused railway stations in the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United Kingdom), and which closed as keep. Also see (in no particular order): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 16#Category:Disused station; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2010, 1#Station categories for renaming; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 30#Category:Defunct railway stations in Kingston upon Hull; Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 24#Category:Abandoned stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per previous consensus on UK railway stations noted above by Redrose64, defunct is not a term used in the UK. Keith D (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - disused seems a reasonable word to me, it indicates the railway station is no longer in use as a railway station. Defunct you barely ever hear in the UK anyway, and certainly not about stations. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not "former"? That should cover all cases, including those like Ramsgate Town railway station, which can hardly be described as "disused" - it simply doesn't exist any more.--Kotniski (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! "former" covers both existing but unused, and demolished railway stations IMO. Markussep ^Talk 07:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose disused is a much better term than defunct; if anything, the cats named 'defuncts' should be moved to disused. If there is to be any moving of such categories, it should be to a single, global standard. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except for the UK one. The parent category is Category:Defunct railway stations and the subcategories should match this unless there is some indication of a different local usage. Clearly this exception has been established for the UK, but I don't recall seeing it established for any of the other country categories. How many of the above opposes are driven solely on the inclusion of the UK in this nomination? Also WP:ILIKEIT is not really a valid reason to retain what is in place. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all renames. Defunct means "ceased to exist" in many dictionary definitions (as well as being an ugly word IMHO). This is plainly wrong as many stations plainly still exist, albeit they no longer function in their role. Disused is accurate terminlogy and covers the situation far better. This is not some weird English dialect that only applies to British stations, it is validly applied to all of the above stations. "Former" is also an accurate term. Ephebi (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:A.S. Asiago Hockey players to Category:HC Asiago players

Nominator's rationale: Merge to the category whose title matches the one of the main article HC Asiago. Pichpich (talk) 12:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator SOXROX (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (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. The previous discussion was 20 months ago and no substantial objectio has been raised this time. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Real World (MTV) to Category:The Real World

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. There is little concern that readers will think that this is a category for actual existence. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous discussion rejected this proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:27, 14 June 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scientists of German descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT. This is one of a handful of "American scientists of X descent" cats that seemingly have no relevance. Nominating them separately in case one seems to be more legitimate than another. The only criteria for inclusion is having a German ancestor and being some type of scientist. Appears to be utterly arbitrary and only set to cause problems in the future. Bulldog123 04:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of German descent, assuming each is already in Category:American scientists via some other subcat. Occuli (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlike the others below, I suspect that American scientists of German descent could be a notable subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scientists of Vietnamese descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT. This is one of a handful of "American scientists of X descent" cats that seemingly have no relevance. The only criteria for inclusion is having a Vietnamese ancestor and being some type of scientist. Appears to be utterly arbitrary and only set to cause problems in the future. Bulldog123 04:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of Vietnamese descent, assuming each is already in Category:American scientists via some other subcat. Occuli (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scientists of Italian descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT. This is one of a handful of "American scientists of X descent" cats that seemingly have no relevance. The only criteria for inclusion is having an Italian ancestor and being some type of scientist. Appears to be utterly arbitrary and only set to cause problems in the future. Bulldog123 04:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of Italian descent, assuming each is already in Category:American scientists via some other subcat. Occuli (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scientists of Pakistani descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT. This is one of a handful of "American scientists of X descent" cats that seemingly have no relevance. The only criteria for inclusion is having a Pakistani ancestor and being some type of scientist. Appears to be utterly arbitrary and only set to cause problems in the future. Bulldog123 04:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Significance of intersection not establishedCurb Chain (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of Pakistani descent, assuming each is already in Category:American scientists via some other subcat. Occuli (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American scientists of Greek descent ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCAT. This is one of a handful of "American scientists of X descent" cats that seemingly have no relevance. The only criteria for inclusion is having a Greek ancestor and being some type of scientist. Appears to be utterly arbitrary and only set to cause problems in the future. Bulldog123 04:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:American people of Greek descent, assuming each is already in Category:American scientists via some other subcat. Occuli (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2011 (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 to Category:Rosmalen Grass Court Championships per the current location of the main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ordina Open to Category:UNICEF Open

Nominator's rationale: Per naming of the main article, UNICEF Open. Was only historically known as the Ordina Open. jorgenev 03:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree This tournament has been around since 1990 with 5 different sponsors and Tennis Project consensus has been to name things with their non-sponsored names. Obviously it cannot remain the Ordina Open because that sponsor has left but really it should be renamed the "Rosmalen Grass Court Championship" as it was when it was non-sponsored in it's first 5 years. Otherwise we have to do this every couple years. I realize this isn't something like Queens Club which was named as such for 50 years before being sponsored. This tourney has been sponsored for 16 of it's 21 years so this is a little trickier to do right. Mine is a weak disagree but for consistency I would go with "Rosmalen Grass Court Championship". I will also propose this with the main article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: I would agree with Fyunck. In nl.wikipedia the tournament is called nl:ATP-toernooi van Rosmalen, translated as ATP tournament of Rosmalen. Instead of Rosmalen it could also be 's-Hertogenbosch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenkvD (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 June 2011 (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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Color sequels of black and white films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category was created in 2008 and has only had two films added. This film category seems too specific to be used to categorize films, and I could not find any other films besides these two that would fit in this category. Since most black and white films date back to the mid-1950s and earlier, it is rare that a sequel of one of those films would be made today, therefore the category has no growth potential. –Dream out loud (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless more films can be discoveredSOXROX (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Change to Keep The article is already expanding and will continue. It can definitely become useful. SOXROX (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, up to 4 now and counting... Fayenatic (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - possibly fodder for a list article if there has been any discussion of the phenomenon in the literature (which I doubt) but this is a quadruple intersection of 1) films 2) shot in color 3) as sequels 4) to black-and-white films. Godzilla films are defined by being sequels to the original, not by being color sequels to the black-and-white original. The sequels to Psycho are defined by being sequels to the original but not by being color sequels to the black-and-white original. The members of this category have no encyclopedic relationship to one another. Is anyone thinking about a film like The Color of Money going to think "it's a color sequel to a black-and-white film" as among the top ten things about the film? The top 100 things? Unlikely in the extreme. The potential size of the category is irrelevant if the characteristic it's based upon is non-defining. Harley Hudson (talk) 06:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - a review of the (currently) six articles in the category turns up no mention in any of them that they are color sequels to black-and-white films. They all note the films' status as sequels but none mention that the original is black-and-white. Harley Hudson (talk) 06:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to disagree with you there, as Texasville mentions this in the lead paragraph. (The text was not added today.) The first Quatermass colour film is also compared to a B&W predecessor, but as the same story had also been made as a TV series, the comparison is with that rather than the preceding B&W films (although I concede that this could come up about any remakes rather than sequels). I also disagree with your view about the proportion of viewers conscious of the contrast with a B&W predecessor; having watched the Quatermass films last year, the difference registered markedly with me. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, not sure how I missed that in Texasville other than I was more focusing on the production sections. Regardless, I still don't believe that this constitutes a defining characteristic of the films and it's still an intersection of four unrelated aspects of the categorized films. I'm not saying that someone who watches, say, Psycho and Psycho II in succession won't notice that one is b/w and the other color; but when considering the sequel films their being a color sequel to a b/w original isn't anything that the average person is going to think about. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the average person will be thinking about something while watching a film is not a prerequisite for a category, e.g. most sub-cats of Category:Films by technology. The original rationale was WP:OC#NARROW; that has been rejected, and so far there is no other convincing WP policy reason for deletion. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is still a small category without a lot of room for expansion and finding a couple of additional entries doesn't change that. Whatever the original reason given, this is still a quadruple intersection and not a defining characteristic of the films, none of which have anything else in common. Harley Hudson (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note User:Harley Hudson has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Otto4711. Jclemens (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2011 (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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historic Florida architecture 1989 AIA survey ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A book of listings of historic places does not make that a notable criteria for judging the site. If this is deleted, then we will need to nominate the subcategories. If the information needs keeping, then a listify might be in order. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We could make articles listing the places indicated in these publications, but categorizing them is unuseful.Curb Chain (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – what is needed is an article on 'Guide to Florida's Historic Architecture, 1989' with an attached list of places. This does not seem to me to be a defining characteristic, and several of the articles I have checked do not mention it (which makes it WP:OR). (eg Hippodrome State Theatre is in Category:National Register of Historic Places (which is defining) so it is not surprising that it is also listed in the Florida guide.) Occuli (talk) 13:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The operation of this category parallels the function of Category:Listed buildings in the United Kingdom which is a popular and useful category. However, as a matter of detail, there is no equivalent national conservation legislation, which leaves the AIA listings as advisory, rather than of legal importance. Nonetheless, this is an important list and I presume it will be updated in time, and expanded across other states. As and when this happens, it may be useful to revisit the title. Ephebi (talk) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (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.