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: You know what? My bad. Can we just merge the pre-existing parent into my just-created films subcat? Yes, there's some TV series composed of films, principally Eyes on the Prize, but there really aren't the radio and web docs to make this upper level category useful, right now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question What exactly are the inclusion criteria for this category? Are these documentaries created by African Americans, or are they documentaries about African Americans, or do we include items that fit either of those categories or do we only include documentaty films about African Americans created by African Americans?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent question, for this one and the Jewish documentary film cat, to be sure. Imo, it would have be doc films by African Americans, at the very least. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Merge to Category:Documentary films about African Americans, since as far as I can tell this is the subject of the category. Some films were also created by African Americans, but of the ones where I could find information on the creator of those I checked, in many cases there was no reason to suppose from the article on the creator that they were African American.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per JLP: this is a much better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 21 April 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.
Category:Aerospace museums in Washington, D.C.[edit]
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: Only one entry. As far as I know, DC has no other aerospace museums. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since Category:Aerospace museums in the United States is divided by state. SMALLCAT shouldn't apply here, since the category is part of a well-establish scheme. If deleted, merge should be to both parent cats, not just the one listed in the nomination. LeSnail (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge this is not just a small cat, it is a one-item cat that has no potential for growth in the foreseable future. At most 41 states have categories, so at least nine states lack categories. There is no reason that we can not get rid of the one article categories and just merge them into the national category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge 1 article with no room for growth and not a true pattern; only 11 states have 5 articles or more. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- A single item category is a hindrance, not an aid to navigation. There is no reason why some articles should not be in the parent and others in state-level subcategories. The article title should ideally include the location. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. Foos in the U.S. should, whenever possible, be diffused by state/district/territory. Lumping them all into one national category is not an aid to navigating users, but a hindrance. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:19, 24 April 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; the implication of the last two points is that the current name is ambiguous and may refer to the general Category:Aviation magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs) 21:39, 4 May 2012
Nominator's rationale: Current name is confusing, as we also have a category on "Space science journals". As this is a subcat of "Engineering journals", renaming it to "Aerospace engineering journals" would be much clearer. Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current category name: For aerospace engineering, there are only three current category subdivisions - aerospace engineers (and similar), aerospace engineering organizations, and aerospace engineering software. For the last two, where aerospace engineering has been defined, it is used because there are many aerospace organisations which are not all engineering-related, and there is aerospace software which is not all engineering-related either, hence the aerospace engineering prefix is valid to avoid a lot of confusion. However, aerospace journals are not confused within the field of aerospace for non-engineeering activities, e.g. recreation or travel. Aerospace defines an industry, pretty much anything that EADS gets involved with. Aerospace journals is enough. The category for space-science journals is much more likely to be confused with the category for astronomy journals, as I don't know where one finishes and the other begins.
The only problem I have is whether aerospace journals is a sub-category of fluid mechanics journals - those two will overlap. Aerospace I think is related to stuff within the atmosphere and stuff from the atmosphere to space. There are more confusing similar categories than this. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apart from the fact that the category was not really necessary (given that we already had "space science journals" and "engineering journals"), now that it exists, it should be clear for users. As you say: "Aerospace defines an industry", hence it's an engineering specialty. I don't see how "fluid mechanics journals" could be overlapping with aerospace engineering. I don't think anybody would think that anything to do with fluid mechanics (even when applied to atmosphere) would ever fall under aerospace. As for the possible confusion between "astronomy journals" and "space science journals", I agree that that is a fine line and perhaps they should be merged. In any case, the existence of more confusing similar categories is not really a good justification for not making this one less ambiguous. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I think you are knitting together ideas of which you have no prevalent experience. It is not necessary to have experience of aerospace journals, but I seem to think you don't actually know what they are, in shape or form. I could have called the category Aeronautics journals, or Aerodynamics journals. However, aerodynamics is not going to cover everything in aeronautics. If you call it Aeronautics journals does that cover rocketry as well? Aerospace journals will cover it all, and calling it Aerospace engineering journals is only ornamental, and does not define anything greater. You also, and I don't feel obliged to lecture you, don't understand that aerodynamics is a sub-topic of fluid mechanics - you have little background knowledge. Aerodynamics is often interchangeable from fluid mechanics. You say that the category Aerospace journals is unnecessary and that Engineering journals would be enough? Engineering is a very broad subject, and if you were looking for aerospace journals in a book shelf of engineering journals it would take all day, and week. It would be like classifing biotechnology journals in biology journals. DinosaursLoveExistence (talk) 18:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow For somebody who does not want to lecture you still do it a lot. My apologies for my ignorance! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note, I'm pretty certain that some, probably most, of our readers have not yet reached your exalted state of knowledge. For you, adding "engineering" may only be "ornamental", but it may be a welcome clarification for members of the unwashed masses like me. You're right that "engineering journals" is a broad definition, but with only 126 articles in it, readers would hardly need a week to find the aerospace engineering journals. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
oppose no need to rename. Aerospace journals is the common category name applied at libraries/etc. A google search will illustrate this. --KarlB (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. While in the trade they may be referred to as "Aerospace journals", so are such publications as Aviation Week & Space Technology, which is not within the scope of this category. Category:Aerospace journals should be a parent category here; regardless of that, this category and its contents should be renamed to the more descriptive name that fits the tree. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:22, 24 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to conform with the standard for project-space categories. The really should be speediable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 18 April 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.
Nominator's rationale These categories are built around a shared naming trait, not anything common in the actual subject. The last is so odd it includes Benjamin Franklin and L. Frank Baum, who may well have done that, but mainly wrote either under their own name or clearly male pseudonyms. To make things more fun at least some of the people in the Female authors cat wrote under their real names, just using initials instead of their first and middle names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The categories are built around a common profession plus the naming trait. This categorisation is quite notable as there are numerous books listing pseudonyms of this sort. Warden (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we do not categorize by naming trait. We categorize by shared actual characteristics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Col Warden. This is an "actual" characteristic. We don't categorize by accidents of naming (ie Category:Writers whose parents named them Betty), but choosing to write under a pseudonym is often a defining characteristic, especially when the chosen name crosses gender boundaries. LeSnail (talk) 01:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all these people are writers. How the the rule apply to artists, and even more so how does it apply to musicians, which I meant to include in this nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- This is clearly a notable characterisitic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 21 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by ethnic or national descent makes sense to me. However categorization according to what US state someone's ancestors happen to be from seems a bit much. The only reason I could see for keeping this category is if there were articles on people whose ancestors were from the short-lived Kingdom of Hawaii, yet were not of Native Hawaiian descent. (Disclaimer: I moved Henry Opukahaia before making this nomination.) LeSnail (talk) 03:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do not categorize by race. Hawaiian descent refers to a shared ethnic heritage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't categorization by race. Did you notice that both of these categories already exist? LeSnail (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is categorizing people who are of Native Hawaiian descent, not people who are descended from anyone who lived in Hawaii. We do categorize by ethnic descent; we don't categorize by mere location descent. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom., but so long as those listed are indeed of Native Hawaiian descent. Mayumashu (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge. I think this is what they meant by the category - they meant people of Native Hawaiian ancestry (or as John Pack Lambert says, people with a shared ethnic heritage) - rather than people who happened to be born in Hawaii, or whose parents lived there. "Hawaiian" is not the same thing as "Native Hawaiian". When I lived in Hawaii I was a "Hawaiian" but not a "Native Hawaiian". But this category implies that I could have listed my kids as being of "Hawaiian descent." --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The question is one of ancestry. We would not allow a category for people of Michigan descent or Wyoming descent (except possibly native American). Peterkingiron (talk) 09:10, 23 April 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.
Category:American pornographic film actors of Hawaiian descent[edit]
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: This article was previously discussed as part of this group nomination. Generally speaking, ethnicity is not very relevant to occupation, but this is special case. Ethnicity (actually probably more accurately race) is very relevant to pornography, so I don't think this should be deleted. Another possible rename is Category:American pornographic film actors of Pacific Islander descent with a broader scope. Certainly categorization of pornographic film actors by US state in which they have ancestry is ridiculous. Note that all the articles currently in this category are indeed of Native Hawaiian descent according to their articles. LeSnail (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. But it seems that here race is unfortunately the relevant feature. If the pornography industry systematically categorizes by race, isn't it most beneficial to our readers for us to reflect that categorization? LeSnail (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, if kept, to clarify that this is for people of Native Hawaiian descent, not just for people descended from residents of Hawaii. I don't know enough about porn to say if this type of ethnic categorization is relevant to the topic, but I suspect that it probably could be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For evidence of the relevance of ethnicity and race, look at Ethnic pornography. LeSnail (talk) 00:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the reasons I gave above. It is sloppy to say "Hawaiian" when they really mean "Native Hawaiian". BTW I assume this would be merged as a sub-category of Category:People of Native Hawaiian descent --MelanieN (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If race is a defining characteristic we still do not classify by it. People have admitted that this is a by race category, so we ought to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did you even read what Lesnail said? He fully says it is a race category, because he says it is industry specific and in this industry the issue is race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He said it is relevant to "ethnicity and race". And if you look at the page he linked to (which is called "ethnic pornography", not "racial pornography"), it does not mention Hawaiians or Pacific Islanders at all. This is an ethnic category just as the other examples I cited are ethnic categories. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what Lesnail wrote, this is not a racial category. The concept of "race" is mostly discredited and deals generally with broad categories; those who classify by "race" are usually focused on skin colour and other aspects of physical appearance. "Ethnicity", on the other hand, is much a more narrow construct and is generally limited to people who share a common heritage—language, homeland, culture, religion, etc. Native Hawaiians are definitely an ethnicity, but I think it would be a much too narrow classification for anyone to argue that it is a "race" in the way that word has usually been used. WP has an extensive categorization scheme for ethnicities, but not for race. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The difference between the current and proposed categories is a single word: "Native". That one word just does not make all the difference in the world when the current title is more pragmatic to readers navigating the hierarchical category structure anyway. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
REname per item above on Hawaiian descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to the clear and defining proposed name, which will also match the name that appears likely to be adopted in the discussion above. - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:25, 24 April 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:No consensus - Feel free to renominate (possibly as separate nominations). - jc37 02:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale first off these both would be mergers without prejudice against recreation. The first one I propose because the category was formed by a rename which seems to have been connected with the general decision to go to X people of Y descent categories, a decision which has been backed away from an absolute rule in cases like Category:French Armenians and Category:Iranian Armenian people. In principal we could have both Turkish categories on the model of say Category:American Métis people and Category:American people of Métis descent. However as it stands now all or virtually all of the Turkish people of Kurdish descent belongs in the Turkish Kurdish people category. I have a strong suspicion that if I started trying to just sort these two cats out I would end up virtually or completely emptying the Turkish people of Kurdish descent. So it seems more reasonable to merge them, and then if we find people who clearly are "of Kurdish descent" and clearly not actually "Kurdish" we can reclassify them. Although the Kurds are not an ethno-religious groups (except maybe in Armenia where a large percentage of them are Yazidis, and even those who are Muslims would be among the few Muslims in that nation) they are a group with creal peoplehood like the Métis or Cherokee. Also like those other groups they have a peoplehood connected with the land where they live, which is at least at present in one or more nation-states which in general are not connected with this specific ethnicity. For the Cheorkee it is 1 country, For the Metis it is 2 countries (U.S., especially Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana; and Canada) and for the Kurdish people it is at least five countries (Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Syria, although mainly just the first three). We still should keep the X people of Y descent for Kurdish people who live outside the Kurdish heartland, and in theory you can find people who are Kurdish by descent but not ethnicity in the five core countries (and probably the Kurdish people of Lebanon in at least some cases are clearly an ethnic group who keep their identity, but that is another issue) but they are in the minority especially in Turkey and Iraq. The Ottoman people of Kurdish descent seems to have as the one current entry a person who might fit the category name, except that there is no apparance of the term "Kurdish" or a variant theorof in the article, we only learn that the subject's father was Serbian, if his mother was Kurdish or if his father had Kurdish ancestry it is not mentioned in the article. I would just delete that categorizing, but that would be an out-of-process emptying of the category, so I thought it would be best to bring it up here. That is why I say "Delete without prejudice". We do have Category:Ottoman Kurdish people, but the one article does not currently have citations to show it should go there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that this nomination runs the risk of WP:TLDR comments being made. Could an "executive summary" version of the rationale be provided? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess the quick summary is that being Kurdish is at base an ethnicity that lacks a nation. Thus all Kurdish people have some specific nation they belong to. Those in Turkey and the Ottoman Empire will tend to be Kurdish people with those citizenships, and the Turkish category is largely that, and the Ottoman category is virtually empty. We should merge them, and if we later find a need we can recreate them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likely Merge as per nom. Though likely not every Turk with (some) Kurdish ancestry would have Kurdish ethnicity, certainly most would, as Kurdish ethnicity is not (particularly) suppressed or anything by Turkey, subscription to Kurdish culture, including use of Kurdish language, amongst Turks of Kurdish origin or lineage would be quite if not very prevalent. Are my suppositions wrong? If so, then both cats should be kept. Mayumashu (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that Turkey has carried out a war to try and destroy Kurdishness is one of the reasons why I proposed the merger. A quick study of the articles in question will reveal that virtualy all are on people who are clearly Kurdish. It is precisely because of Turkey's persecution of Kurdish people that it is unlikely we will find many people who can be easily identified as Turkish people of Kurdish descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:Kurdish people of Turkey. If they are abroad and of Kurdish ethnicity, they should be in Category:People of Kurdish descent, whehtert they camje from Turkey, Iraq or elsewhere. The events at the end of the WWI meant that the Kurdish people were split between Iran, Iraq and Turkey, probably with minorities in Syria and elsewhere. They speak s different language from the Turks. Personally I disapprove of the ethic category "Ottoman", because the Ottomans were a dynasty, not a nation. We may refer colloquaially to the Hapsburg Empire, meaning the lands ruled personally by the Holy Roman Emperor, not all of which were in the Empire. The result of migrations after WWI and WWII is that most Europeans countries are mono-ehhtical (or relatively so), excluding post-war immigration. This is not the case in the Middle East, where there are Armenian and Kurdish minoritiues inb several countries; also minorities of other Christian millets. While formally the Empire ruled by the Ottoman dynasty was the Ottoman Empire, it was colloquailly known in the West as Turkey (for example in 18th-century British customs records). I consider that we should not regard Turkey as a new country in c. 1922, when the Young Turks expelled the victorious occupying allied powers, but as a continuation of the Ottoman Empire, which had lost its eastern territories in Syria Iraq and beyond in 1918, just as it has progressively lost its territory in the Balkans in the Balkan Wars. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:34, 23 April 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. "Notable" is clearly redundant and not needed, but to me this looks (for the most part) like a duplication of Category:Chiropractors. Some may not be trained chiropractors, but I think that sort of distinction is too fine, especially when it comes to chiropractic: the first chiropractor was essentially self-taught and the scientific basis for the practice has been continually challenged since it was developed. The ones who are not chiropractors can just be placed in Category:Chiropractic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why not merge this to the chiropractors category instead of deleting it?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles haven't been removed from the Category:Chiropractors tree (subcategorized by nationality), so upmerging would result in duplicate categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category:Chiropractors. Then let someone else fix the duplicate categorization. If you delete you will lose the information that these people are (apparently) chiropractors - unless they are *all* already in the tree. If they are, then delete with prejudice. --KarlB (talk) 05:29, 18 April 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.
Nominator's rationale The writers by language categories have grown up to be large and unruly by not well thought out. At some point it was realized that A-these categories in many cases overlapped very closely to writers by nationality cases but B-there are almost always exceptions so that we can not actually make Category:English writers a sub-cat of Category:English language wrtiters. So we came up with the logical decision that for most by language categories (I am not sure if it is ever exactly spelled out, but singers and writers seem to be clear cases, poets probably also applies, but translators are probably an exception, and I am not sure anyone has ever tried to decide how to do the film-makes by language cats) we would not put people in the category if their language of production is the primary language of their nation. On the other hand with Indian and Pakistani writers there is no dominant language (especially not for India) so we have a whole set of sub-cats for both these Nationality writers by language written in. The Phillipines is in a situation where we could possibly create a third such structire if it does not exist yet. This is all background to try and get people into understanding what my main question is. The issue is, at present there is potentially a high overlap between Category:Kurdish-language writers and Category:Kurdish writers (although at least in Turkey many of the latter only write in Kurdish). In fact I would not be surprised if Kurdish-language writers is virtually a functional sub-cat of Kurdish-writers, since most people in this category will be Kurds. Of the slightly more than 80 people in this category or the poets sub-cat, all except for one the article says they are ethnically Kurdish. Thus it would seem that we should make this a sub-cat of Category:Kurdish writers since that category contains writers who were ethnically Kurdish but did not write in Kurdish. On the other hand, there are some writers who wrote in the Gorani language in this category which is disputed as to whether or not it is part of the Kurdish language (or maybe it is considered one of the "Kurdish languages" in the sense of the mother tongues of the Kurdish people, there is no scholarly consensus on the matter) so maybe we should just merge this category into Category:Kurdish writers on the assumption that the definition of the Kurdish language is too open to dispute to be useful. If I had to pick one of these two options I would merge this category because the other option would create an irregular mother/daughter category relationship. In many of these articles it is very clear the subject is ethnically Kurdish, but the issue of what language they wrote in is often not as clearly addressed. I did a quick perusal of most of them so it may be brought up somewhere in the article but the ethnic identification of the subject as Kurdish is normally brought up in the opening sentance. To give you an example of how unclear the language of the article subjects works is we learn in the article on Xelîlê Çaçan Mûradov that he wrote several books "on Kurdish folklore", but what language these books were in is not stated (they were probably in either Kurdish or Russian, since Muradov was a citizen of the Soviet Union, but even that is just a guess on my part).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that this nomination runs the risk of WP:TLDR comments being made. Could an "executive summary" version of the rationale be provided? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attmpted Summary All Kurdish-language writers so classified are Kurdish. However there are at least two languages being grouped together here in a way that is debatable. Also many of the articles do not clearly establish that the person wrote in Kurdish. The articles normally make the Kurdish ethnicity of the subject a point mentioned in the first sentance. This should be merged to Category:Kurdish writers because this is the better developed category and this is for now just an under-developed sister cat that will largely be an overlap category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Rename Category:Kurdish writers to Category:Writers of Kurdish descent. The headnote for "Kurdish writers" explicitly states that writers in the Kurdish language should not be in it. If there are people who are miscategorised (or possibly so), the answer is to recategorise them. In case of doubt, place a query on the talk page. As I have stated in relation to another of today's CFDs. Ethnicity and nationality in this part of the world are far from simple. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:53, 23 April 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A little bit WP:DAFT, I think. We do not categorize political posters (or other media) by things that appear on the poster (or in the other media). Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:05, 18 April 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.
Category:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England[edit]
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.
Oppose If we rename it there will be a risk of people putting post-1707 MPs from England in it, and we will have to periodically patrol the category to prevent this. Right now if someone things "Sir John Smith was in parliament from 1730-1735, must go in Category:Memebers of the Parliament of England" they will put it there, and then see that it does not exist, and have to figure out why, if we rename they will put it there and think it is in the right place. It is much easier to make sure the seven election pages are correct than the 197 pages directly in this category (not to mention the 148 Cornwall constituencies pages, which is another sub-cat that has pre-1707). The elections category also has the advantage that in most election articles it tells us the year, while If some editor creates an article on someone names Samuel Godbee, you have to go look at the article to be sure, and may then learn he lived 1650-1730 and is mainly known for his military service, so it will be four paragraphs in before you finally learn the years he served in Parliament. The prospect of renaming this is an open invitation to create a situation that will lead to miscategorization and a lot of work to keep categories correctly used. I am OK with BHG's rename, but am as willing to just keep the current name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia is (supposedly) written by reasonably intelligent and reasonably well-informed people. If an occasional article gets miscategorised it is usually cos a thicko "less-well-informed" (ahem) User has been dabbling in a topic of which they have little knowledge. If we are going to start dotting every i and crossing every t, and disambiguating things which are not ambiguous, then I look forward with relish to the Move discussion for our United Kingdom article to its proposed new title: England (well, that's what everyone calls it), per WP:COMMONNAME. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sadly, Mais Oui's supposition about well-informed editors is not as valid as we would all like it to be, and the deficiencies reflect the way in which the history was related in some settings. Three different Parliaments have met at the same site in the Palace of Westminster, with a continuity of process and tradition through several major changes of geographical scope and two creations of new states. The dominant narrative of historical continuity has led to such terminological inaccuracies as The Parliaments of England. The inclusion of the date period provides a clear warning to editors who are unaware of the complexities of Westminster parliamentary history, and helps to avoid miscategorisations which are hard to track down. Please remember that categories will frequently be added by editors who have little or no knowledge of the subject area, and who are helpfully trying to organise inadequately-categorised articles. This change would make their job more difficult, and it would require other editors to regularly monitor the categories for miscategorisations. For what benefit? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Any deviation from the main article title should probably be attacked with a nomination that includes Category:Parliament of England at least, and preferably all of its subcategories. For now this will just be conforming the subcategory to its parent, which can generally be done speedily. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. Talk of using the speedy process in an area which is demonstrably controversial is disruptive to consensus formation, and leads to endless procedural wrangling. The whole point of speedy renaming is that it is supposed to be used as a lightweight process for uncontroversial matters, not as a battering ram to demolish opposition. I hope you can reassure editors here that you will not attempt to use speedy renaming to circumvent the opposition here.
If there is a desire for consistency with Category:Parliament of England, that could also be achieved by renaming the parent category to Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707). Consistency is a good principle, but it should be applied with some flexibility rather than as a rigid rule. In this case, there are few articles in the parent Category:Parliament of England, so it is easily maintained ... but there are 3,197 articles directly in Category:Members of the pre-1707 Parliament of England, and about 15,000 more articles on post-1707 MPs in what Stooks Smith wrongly calls the The Parliaments of England. What on earth is the benefit of creating this ambiguity? Are those who support this renaming going to commit themselves in perpetuity to patrolling the renamed category and looking for anachronisms?
Rather than blindly applying a consistency principle, please apply a little WP:COMMONSENSE and examine the reasons for making this complex bit of historical ambiguity an exception to the general principle. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is a desire for consistency with Category:Parliament of England, that could also be achieved by renaming the parent category to Category:Parliament of England (pre-1707)". Exactly. So after this discussion, nominate Category:Parliament of England. Just because I support renaming a subcategory for consistency does not necessarily mean I lock myself into supporting the name of the parent category forever. I'm not expressing an opinion on it because we're not discussing the parent category. But for now, there's no good reason that I can see to have one subcategory with a name that differs from the parent category, all the sibling categories, and the main article for the body. My point in mentioning the speedy criterion is because this nomination meets the speedy criterion and therefore is of the type that is routinely done speedily. Because it's being discussed here and a user has disagreed with the rename, I doubt it would in fact be speedied, so you can probably relax on that score. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GO'f, please can you actually read the reason why I propose keeping the MPs category with its date, regardless of what happens to the parent category? Your reply completely ignores the specific problems which I have explained apply to the MPs category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:40, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. I just disagree that it's a major concern. In fact, I would have no problem keeping the proposed name as the permanent name. There are others that could work as well or maybe even better, but I have no issues with the proposed name. But these sorts of issues are quite common in categorization, and I have decided that rather than pre-emptively disambiguating in each case to a format that is selected at CFD, a preferred approach (for me, at least) is to just use the article names as a guide for what to call the relevant categories. I also think that subcategories should use the same name format as the parent categories. While that might result in some category names that are not 100% unambiguous (hello again, Category:London), I can live with that, because it brings an internal consistency to content in Wikipedia that I feel is extremely helpful. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably only a major concern to those editors working in that subject area, who will have to clean up the subtle miscategorisations resulting from an ambiguous category name. Are you going to commit to monitor any miscategorisations amongst the 3.200 articles in the category? Or is that going to be somebody else's job? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be happy to do my best to help out; though I doubt it will be a big problem. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment knowing that Parliament of England is not the right term today is one issue, knowing it is not the right term in 1710 is another issue entirely, especially since the lead book on the Parliament throughout the 18th century uses the England name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707). It is sometimes necessary to have more complicated category names than are strictly necessary to exclude articles that should not be there. The articles on my nearby city are at "Birmingham", but the categories have to be at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to ensure that articles on "Birmingham, Alabama" do not get listed. There are still a lot of red-linked biographies of MPs, and a lot of people who will use "England" imprecisely when they mean GB or UK. I do not like having to include the date, but fear it will reamin necessary until some one can devise software to check the category for inappropriate contents, or until we have split the category by Parliaments sufficiently to make it a container category (with sub-cats and almost no articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:02, 23 April 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. This is an ethnicity category. The category for people from Slovenia is Category:Slovenian people. However, "Slovene" can mean the same thing that "Slovenian" means—a person from Slovenia. Therefore, to avoid confusion, I suggest adding the word "Ethnic" to this category, in the same way that we have Category:Ethnic Kazakh people distinguished from Category:Kazakhstani people and Category:Ethnic Kyrgyz people distinguished from Category:Kyrgyzstani people. (This category also appears to have recently been unusually (for an ethnicity category) dispersed to subcategories. We don't, for example, generally categorize people by ethnicity and religion, yet we have Category:Slovene Christians. At some point, it would probably be a good idea to nominate some of the subcategories as a follow-up.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The rename does not in theory change the perameters, but it makes them more clear since the Slovene/Slovenian distinction is one that is only clear when you realize that it exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination - provides clarity Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 19 April 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.
Category:Miss Puerto Rico winners from Ponce[edit]
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:Upmerge. Category:People from Ponce, Puerto Rico appears to be excessively broken down into subcategories. This is one of the more egregious examples. I suggest upmerging this to both parents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. There is nothing excessive about it. Someone interested in finding all the beauty queens from Ponce in one spot doesn't have to go thru the 200+ "People from Ponce, Puerto Rico" articles to find them, and instead finds them here, in a clean, hierachical format. This is an excellent example of how categories are supposed to be used, per the WP:Category guidelines. In addition, whether an oversight or not, the proposal is misnamed, since Upmerging this really equates to deleting the category, and this is not WP:CFD. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.[reply]
I disagree that this is "an excellent example" of creating a structure that adheres to the guidelines on categorization. Specifically, it seems to be overcategorization of the type discussed in the "narrow intersection" guideline. Category:Puerto Rico First Ladies from Ponce is another example of this type of thing. It's just as easy to argue that someone who wants a "clean" collection of people from Ponce, Puerto Rico, is now forced to trawl through the many specific and narrow subcategories. (Incidentally, I don't undertand your last sentence. This isWP:CFD—categories for discussion. Discussion here can result in renaming, merger, or deletion.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since there are 78 municipalities in Puerto Rico, the comparison to Wayne County is workable, except Wayne Count has over 10 times the number of people, and San Juan Municipality is about twice as big as Ponce by population.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge – per nom. This is indeed a narrow intersection of unrelated traits. Oculi (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With certain conditions. I would like to explain myself. I opposed the idea of "Categories" years ago when someone came up with the idea. I believed then that if we had "Lists of People", what was the point of having categories. However, I later realized the usefulness of the categories. Now, in regard to the "sub-categories" discussed here, I can understand User: Mercy's point. Both San Juan and Ponce are large cities in Puerto Rico who have given the world over 100 people of note and whose biographies are in Wikipedia. Therefore, sub-categories, as he stated. may be useful. Unlike, let's say, the Town of Lajas, See: Category:People from Lajas, Puerto Rico, with only four emteries. In opinion my opinion there should be a condition that a place must have at least 100 notable natives in order to justify a sub-category. This is just my opinion. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at present Ponce is the only one of the 77 sub-cats of Category:People by city in Puerto Rico that has a sub-cat by profession for a profession other than mayors. This is not to say that this is the only legitimate sub-cat for people by city, but Ponce seems to have gone to the extreme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As far as I can tell this is also the only sub-cat of any beauty pagents winners cat by place of origin. We do not even sub-categorize Category:Miss America winners which has 85 entries, so why are we sub-dividing the 24 entries in the Miss Puerto Rico category (currently all three of these articles are in the parent category)? This is the only subdivision of the winners of a specific beauty contest by location that exists at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My immediate reaction was to vote to upmerge, but Ponce has a population of 186000 and a the "people from" cat has a lot of subcats by professionals. However this will reamin a small category; it may be better to look for renaming to a wider category, such as "Beauty pageant winners from". A further objection is that this is an award category, for which the normal solution is "listify and delete". Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. There's some good arguments for !keep above, but I honestly can't see it - it's WP:SMALLCAT without any chance of a category tree since there's only the two significant cities, Ponce and San Juan, in Puerto Rico. I'm open to argumnent to convince me otherwise when I'm more caffinated though! - The BushrangerOne ping only 07:30, 24 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: This category has a bizarre name which gets very few hits in the literature. Determinants of health is a much more accepted term for what seems to be in this category. KarlB (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too vague. I don't think it's too big of an oversimplification to say your environment, your genetics, your socioeconomic status, and your culture and lifestyle are the overwhelming factors affecting your health, and that is a pretty wide swath of human knowledge and experience.- choster (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose determinants is too deterministic. Many factors affect health, but very few determine it. Perhaps there are other common terms for this area? Zodon (talk) 03:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I deliberately proposed 'determinants of health' instead of 'social determinants of health', because removing the 'social' part makes it a bit more broad. Also, while I understand you may not like the terminology, it is quite standard, see for example here: WHO section on determinants of health. I suggest we just use the standard terminology. As for choster's suggestion to delete, thats also an interesting possibility - but I wouldn't say that it is totally obvious what are the things that impact your health - read Social determinants of health in poverty, recently written, for some intricate details on how health and poverty are intertwined. --KarlB (talk) 05:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition withdrawn. Don't care for the name, but if that is what WHO uses (and we can't come up with anything better) would be okay. Oppose deletion, useful to have various effectors linked.
Comment - It would be nice to have a category to group the various articles covering "Health effects of x," (where x includes, chocolate, coffee, wine, tea, natural phenols and polyphenols, sun exposure and probably a whole lot of others - for instance in category:prevention and category:health) I would have figured that health effectors would be a reasonable name for such a category. Would they fit in Determinants of health? Is there some better grouping for them? (The grouping I am talking about is not just articles with a title in that form, those just happen to be the ones I noticed while looking at the categories.) Zodon (talk) 06:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support It should certainly be changed to SOMETHING, because it is ungrammatical as it stands. Various factors do not "effect" health, they "affect" health. 'Health effects" is grammatical; "health effectors" is not. It could be changed to "Health affectors", but that term does not seem to be widely used so I support the current suggestion. Could also be "Factors contributing to health" but that's probably too long for a category name. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment see here for more on determinants of health: Health#Determinants_of_health. i don't think we need to reinvent well-known terminology here.--KarlB (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not think 'Determinants' is too deterministic; when we say 'Joe caused the accident', it is understood that we have not bothered to mention the cars, gravity, the possibility of some force beyond our scientific comprehension, or even the fact he was late for work. I note that Zodon withdrew his opposition, so I am not arguing against him here, and 'affectors' is clunky. Anarchangel (talk) 00:25, 20 April 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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is really just an umbrella for all of the subcats. The scope of each of them is completely random--lasting 400 years, 68 years, 22 years, etc. and overlapping by a few years (Category:English cricket in the 14th to 17th centuries and four years of Category:English cricket seasons from 1697 to 1763.) This scheme needs to be more logical, using divisions by century/decade/year or at least having a consistent method of breaking up the years. (I'm listing subcats. right after this nomination is posted.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Rather than random, I should probably say arbitrary, but still, that doesn't explain why the 1969 category stops in 2000... Some events are more significant than others, but there's really no reason for dividing them at all, except by a standardized scheme (like years/decades/centuries.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Not commenting yet on whether to keep the categories)... but I imagine the reason the 1969 category stops at 2000 is because that's when the County Championship was split into two divisions. Nev1 (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – each category describes why the particular cut-offs have been chosen (cricket-related reasons, neither random nor arbitrary). If 2000 is not a cricket-related cut-off (and this is perceived to be problematic) then just merge the last 2. Oculi (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These categories aid the navigation of articles for those interested in cricket. Blindly rehashing them into regimented order will do a beautiful job of making them look tidy at the cost of utility. You can logically arrange a zoo so that pigs and pigeons are in the same room, but someone interested in birds will find it hard to compare the pigeons for size with other birds whose names don't happen to begin with the letter "p". And I think the elephant shrews might get somewhat overlooked in their room. --Dweller (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli, with no objection to merging the last two. This division of eras is well-reasoned and well-documented, and it is certainly not arbitrary (with the possible exception of 2000, as noted above). I think that the cricket project should be commended for developing a structure which reflects the actual history of the game, and it would be a real shame to disrupt this merely to fit into the arbitrary round-number scheme. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I rather think this is for non-cricketing people to take a view on. There are sound cricket reasons why it's divided as it is, but as a project I feel we should be looking at these indexing things from the perspective of the non-expert: does it help or hinder them from accessing the information? Maybe it doesn't make a blind bit of difference, in which case a cricketing reason for dividing it this way is as good as any other reason for doing it differently... Johnlp (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I about as much a non-cricketing person as you can get. I don't play ball games and I don't watch them, and have always tried to avoid them, and I have no interest in them per se. My participation in this discussion is purely out of interest in effective categorisation of any topic, and as a complete non-expert on cricket I spent some time reading the links above before commenting. It seems to me that the project has got this right, and that attempting to impose by-century divisions would cause real disruption to the navigational utility of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scheme is not random and is entirely logical in cricket history terms for the reasons outlined above by Jenks24. The comments about round numbers and pigs with pigeons are equally discerning as there comes a point when to be logical is quite illogical (as Mr Spock might say). BrownHairedGirl has hit the nail on the head with her view that it is "a structure which reflects the actual history of the game". One would imagine that the County Championship divisions are the reason for 2000 but I am not on sure ground there (it may be millennium-specific). --Jim Hardie (talk) 19:13, 18 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: Overlaps with this larger category, which contains almost the same cats. Not clear what the definition of 'healthcare infrastructure', and how it differs from healthcare organizations. KarlB (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP has a fairly broad and inclusive definition of "medical and health organizations." I would not consider anti-vaccination lobbies, hiking clubs, or pharmacy museums to be integral to the delivery of health care to anyone.- choster (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment the question for categories is, is it defining? many people define 'healthcare infrastructure' differently - for some, it is buildings; for others, it is technology that goes in a hospital [1], for others it might be, as you say 'things integral to the delivery of health care' - but that's the whole problem with this category - how do we decide what is 'integral'? are pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies integral? if they don't exist, drugs won't be on the shelf. What about medical technology manufacturers? If they go out of business, the surgeons will have a hard time buying their scalpels. I'm not claiming infinite regress, but I'm just pointing out that these fuzzy categories are problematic because there isn't a standard we can use to say 'this is healthcare infrastructure' and 'this isn't'. Zodon points out that healthcare policy would be part of infrastructure, which I wouldn't have said myself, and healthcare policy isn't in that category, or in the merge target! So you just end up with all of healthcare together - education, infrastructure, finance, services, policy, governance, and information, at which point you're at the parent cat.--KarlB (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Healthcare infrastructure would include things like healthcare software, healthcare policy, however not clear we need this container at this point. Zodon (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but some of the articles may need to be moved to sub-cats of the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't know what is behind the effort to eliminate any category with healthcare in the name, but this one makes no sense at all! Infrastructure is about the physical structure supporting healthcare (think hospitals). Organizations are groups and companies. These are clearly not the same! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment see this recent article for example, one of the early google hits on 'Healthcare infrastructure' - http://www.cooper.com/journal/2010/10/transforming_healthcare.html - we don't even have a clear definition for what infrastructure is - according to the wiki, it is "Infrastructure is basic physical and organizational structures needed for the operation of a society or enterprise" - so I pose the questions I asked above - at what point is something considered 'basic' for healthcare? Is an information system essential? What about management and policy and financing? those are all organizational structures. Training of health workers is another. The bottom line is, this cat is not defining; different writers use the term healthcare infrastructure differently, and we don't even have a head article on the subject - the best shot we have is Health system, which covers many many things that aren't in this cat, but which are in the merge target. --KarlB (talk) 01:00, 25 April 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.
