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 to Category:Yahoo! Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Yahoo! Games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only category is main article Yahoo! Games. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Speedy merge to Category:Yahoo! per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Speedy merge to Category:Yahoo! per WP:C2F.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 15:06, 9 January 2023 (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) 18:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Scholars of Sunni Islam to Category:Sunni Islam and Category:Scholars of Islam

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support but what is the difference between a religious scholar and a theologian? Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 09:18, 9 January 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located underground ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEF (along with Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located underground: while stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such... their defining characteristic is that they are SkyTrain stations, not whether they're underground or above-ground ones Joeyconnick ( talk) 20:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, but that defining characteristic is already fulfilled via the use of the "Canada Line stations", "Expo Line (SkyTrain) stations" and "Millenium Line stations", which in turn links to that category. Wikipedia categories aren't meant to be defining by namespace, at least not primarily. The thought was to connect them to the category tree "Underground rapid transit stations located underground/above ground in Canada" which then connects to the global dito Assimo23 ( talk) 20:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Sorry... the "Underground rapid transit stations located underground/above ground in Canada"? That seems contradictory.

Again, the majority of sources (which are mainly local news outlets) that discuss SkyTrain stations do not consistently comment on the underground/above-ground nature of these stations... which clearly means the two categories do not capture defining characteristics. Then there's cases like Waterfront, which has both a above-ground sections and an underground one (or Commercial–Broadway)... honestly I'm sure it would be described differently by different people/sources. So not only is a binary underground/above-ground designation not useful or a key feature, sometimes it's impossible to unambiguously determine. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 20:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

/info/en/?search=Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_underground_by_country

/info/en/?search=Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_underground

/info/en/?search=Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_above_ground_by_country

/info/en/?search=Category:Underground_rapid_transit_stations_located_above_ground

Look, you're not arguing against my proposition, there's around 45 underground rapid transit systems in the world that apparently like the idea on Wikipedia, if you have something against the Vancouver system being part of those then feel free to argue that. I was not considering anything else other than to add this system to the overall category tree. It looks like what you're really contemplating is whether it should be classified as an underground rapid transit system or just a rapid transit system in general, in which case those categories wouldn't belong here. But it is already listed in the "underground rapid transit systems in Canada" category so .. Assimo23 ( talk) 21:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

You created categories which ought not to exist because they are non-defining (and were they to exist, they would in some cases be impossible to accurately assign). The fact that there apparently are crazy, self-contradictory categories like "Underground stations that are above ground" is immaterial.

Oh... I see... YOU created at least one of these insanities: Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground in Canada. And you just created it. Like January 2, 2023, i.e. yesterday. And the other 4 you list above are also your (misguided) creations, albeit from as "far back" as September last year.

Yeah, there are ALL sorts of problems here that extend WAY beyond this particular CFD. But to return to the original point about the two particular categories above: WP:CATDEF. They're not defining categories, ergo they should be deleted. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 05:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, Category:Underground rapid transit systems in Canada is not a category. I believe you mean Category:Underground rapid transit in Canada. And Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) being in that category has no relevance to whether:

• Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located above ground
• Category:SkyTrain (Vancouver) stations located underground

should exist. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 05:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

In a subway system, stations are frequently mentioned as being either underground or above ground, in the news (for example about new stations, they are always mentioned whether they're underground or sub-surface in the news). How would that not be a notable trait about a subway station?

As for the category's name, I also find it insane to have Wikipedia category trees called "rapid transit" vs "underground rapid transit" because there is no way to definitively put a line between what constitutes one or the other, however, I did not come up with that idea, nor did I come up with the idea to start classifying only one of them as underground vs above ground, that was also initiated by New York City subway. Calling it "subway stations located above ground" maybe would be preferable but that would break the namespace logic of the entire class tree. Assimo23 ( talk) 12:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Would perhaps be ideal to actually take a look at the category thoroughly before coming to conclusions prematurely .. Assimo23 ( talk) 20:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep/repopulate until broader discussion, a change should take place for the entire tree of Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground and Category:Underground rapid transit stations located underground. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• We've all learned that mass nominations do not work well. The offenders can populate them much faster than we can discuss them. Focused discussion is better.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment These two categories have been emptied by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

  Apologies if that was non-kosher. I haven't done much CfD stuff. My thinking was, along the lines of BRD, that the onus would be on the editor making the new category additions to justify their proposed additional categories once their application had been questioned. — Joeyconnick ( talk) 22:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delete — as an exemplar. This should be the first of a wave of such deletions. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion. Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground is a misnomer. If above ground, then not underground. Apparently, some languages call all rapid transit systems an "underground", a poor mistranslation of "subway".
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 14:54, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Delete per William above. – Aidan721 ( talk) 04:34, 10 January 2023 (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) 18:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Articles with WORLDCATID identifiers to Category:Articles with WorldCat identifiers

Nominator's rationale: rename per article WorldCat. This was opposed at speedy, I am not sure if it was necessary to oppose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ HandsomeFella and Pppery: pinging contibutors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support - the oppose is very bizarre. Oculi ( talk) 18:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The opposes below are more convincing. Oculi ( talk) 00:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "Articles with X identifiers" categories are named after the parameter {{ authority control}} accepts, not the corresponding article.

{{ authority control|WorldCat=lccn-n78-95332}} does not work, whereas {{ authority control|WORLDCATID=lccn-n78-95332}} does

does * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose These categories are deliberately named after the name/symbolic abbreviation of the corresponding identifier or, where this is not possible because of name conflicts, after the name of the associated template parameter. They are not necessarily named after possibly existing articles about these identifiers or their parent organizations.

-- Matthiaspaul ( talk) 22:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, then why not rename that parameter? It can be done by adding an alias parameter until all instances are changed from WORLDCATID to WorldCat. HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply

If there is some good reason why this is technically difficult/impossible, then add an explanation to the documentation of this and another similar templates to forestall future CFDs. jnestorius^{( talk)} 20:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC) reply

We are moving away from using named parameters on this template anyway. In the future it will just use WorldCat Identities ID (superseded) (P7859) from Wikidata so this is less of an issue. By the way, I notice that even this property has the repeated/redundant use of "Identities" and "ID"! — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 17:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment I'm not sure if the size of the category is a factor here in this discussion but this change would affect 773,292 different articles if it is approved. Just don't want to bot to overheat and burn out or spend days (or weeks?) doing a category rename unless it would have a tangible benefit. That's all to say that changing this category name is not a trvial matter so I'd make sure that a majority of editors think this would be an improvement and a positive change and that this isn't just a preference for one name over another. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Liz this is populated by a Lua module, a form of super template, so it won't initially need a bot at all. Changing the template will change the category as the cache is purged by the wiki engine.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support — match Category:Articles with WorldCat-LCCN identifiers and Category:Articles with WorldCat-VIAF identifiers. Also, ID identifiers is redundant, unless about Id.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• It doesn't really matter either way, but on balance I think the less redundant and clearer wording outranks the slightly less consistent naming schema, so I am happy to support the rename — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 17:57, 9 January 2023 (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 both to Category:Medical and health organizations by subject Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:25, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Medical and health organizations by medical condition to Category:Medical and health organizations by medical specialty

Nominator's rationale: There is a significant overlap between these two categories. There is also no parent or similar categorization scheme I can see ("by medical conditions" and "by medical specialty"). While one could quibble that for some organizations one name is slightly more accurate, bottom line is that those two categories are about the same concept. An alternative to merger to one of the existing names would be to merge and then rename the target to Category:Medical and health organizations by subject per parent category ( Category:Organizations by subject). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Certainly merge, the two categories have a clearly overlapping scope. I do not have a strong opinion on which name the merged category should adopt. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think that there is definite overlap, but I worry that this proposed merge would displace all the disability related organizations that focus on specific conditions. I prefer merging into the broader category name "by subject" as that wouldn't risk overemphasizing the medical side of disability organizations. Mason ( talk) 16:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge both to Category:Medical and health organizations by subject as suggested.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:17, 8 January 2023 (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 & purge Timrollpickering ( talk) 19:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:Modes of production to Category:??? and Category:???

Nominator's rationale: Category conflates two distinct concepts: (1) Mode of production (a concept in Marxian economics), and (2) various operation modes for manufacturing processes. (Not sure of best names.) 73.223.72.200 ( talk) 02:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Production and manufacturing, too vague a concept to merit a separate category. But purge the four articles about Marxian economics which are already in Category:Marxian economics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:01, 25 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Production and manufacturing, purge those already in Category:Marxian economics.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:19, 8 January 2023 (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) 18:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:People from Haslet, Texas to Category:People from Denton County, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Small town (~1,500 residents) containing only one article User:Namiba 02:41, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC) reply
• Merge
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:56, 8 January 2023 (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.