The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with Dupuytren's contracture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete We generally don't categorize people according to relatively benign medical conditions because it fails to constitute a defining characteristic of an individual. Pichpich (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• support not defining. --KarlB (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hardly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dupuytren's contracture is a relatively mild condition, not a defining characteristic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what next Category:People with a common cold? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for procedural close If there's to be a general purge of Category:People by medical or psychological condition (the parent Cat), could it please be done in one fell swoop, rather than piecemeal, so that all interested editors can offer an opinion in one debate, rather than trying to catch up with a discussion they seem to have missed. --Dweller (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this is a minor condition that is not defining. The general consensus seems to be there are some conditions that are defining and we categorize by them. Some are even so defining that we categorize by the intersection of the condition and occupation, such as Category:Deaf musicians. The question here is "is this condition of that level of being a defining characteristic" and most people seem to think the answer is a resounding no.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm less familiar with Cat policy than I should be. Can you please tell me where the policy/guideline is that says we should only categorise by defining characteristics? I find it difficult to believe, as we categorise people by many characteristics that aren't really defining. --Dweller (talk) 07:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found it, finally. It's not in WP:COP where I'd expect it to be... but it is in Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. Most of the conditions found in Category:People by medical or psychological condition are not "defining" in this manner. They should all be considered in one discussion. (Quiz question: Can you link the defining characteristics of Bobby Womack, Martina Navratilova and, erm, Robert Mugabe?) --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some medical conditions are "defining" of the individual, and some aren't — it would be inappropriate to consider them all in one bulk discussion, because the consensus needs to be determined case by case. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have not read the articles on any of the three people in question, so I could not even tell what year they were born in, but that does not mean we should not categorize them by the year they are born in. We consider physical conditions on a case by case basis. There is a consensus to include some characteristics, but not others. At present there is not much more than a case by case method to draw the line. The same applies to award cats, which in theory are discoraged, but in practice keep popping up because it is much easier to form a category than to get rid of one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're linked by being "people with cancer". Not a defining characteristic of any of them. --Dweller (talk) 09:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that this one is relatively unimportant/benign and certainly not defining for a person. We have to do these "piecemeal", because many editors will be in favour of keepings certain ones and the same editors will be in favour of deleting others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; non-defining. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World War II ghetto inmates to Category:Nazi-era ghetto inmates

Nominator's rationale: This name is a better descriptor of the category. Also consider that the mother category's main article is Ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe. I also considered the rename to "Inmates of ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe", but that seems like a mouthful. Hoops gza (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match related article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- I am beielve that no one else had ghettos at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actually there were things in the United States in 1942 that would be called ghettos, but they were totally different than the Nazi ones, lacking clear boundaries, legal limits, barbeb wire and other things. So the current category name might (but is very unlikely to) cause the placement of some people in the category eroneously.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 15 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:PlayStation to Category:PlayStation (console)

Nominator's rationale: Per PlayStation (about the series and brand name) and PlayStation (console) (about Sony's first console in said series.) If this passes, the sub-cats are all speedy-able. Note that Category:PlayStation 1 peripherals has a non-standard name. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it covers both the PlayStation and the PSOne, so I suggest using Category:PlayStation 1, since "PlayStation 1" is also used to describe both the PSX and the PSOne. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 05:50, 14 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/merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Executed Nazi leaders to Category:Executed Nazis

Nominator's rationale: I know this may seem confusing. I am asking for "Executed Nazi leaders" to be turned into "Executed Nazis", with all of the respective subcategories of "Executed Nazis" and all of the categories of which it is a part. I purposely diffused all articles in "Executed Nazis" into its current subcategories because every article can be put into a more specific subcategory. Hoops gza (talk) 21:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Maybe this is just semantic nit picking, but do you want to upmerge this category into Category:Executed Nazis (it already exists)? RevelationDirect (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I am asking to upmerge, actually.Hoops gza (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Oculi (talk) 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It should be upmerged because "leaders" is a poor word choice, and rather unnecessary. It is not objective. Where do we draw the line between a "leader" and others? The other main point is that every Nazi can and should fit into one of three categories: Category:Executed Nazis (which currently stands as Category:Executed Nazi leaders), Category:Executed Nazi concentration camp personnel, or Category:Executed Nazi collaborators.Hoops gza (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge "leaders" is too arbitrary for categorizing purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge -- Who consistutes a leader is POV. However, since we have national categories for collatorators, we may need to put the Germans in a German Nazi category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge. Agree with the rationale. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The name change should also apply to the subcategories Category:Nazi leaders executed in Czechoslovakia‎, Category:Nazi leaders executed in Norway, Category:Nazi leaders executed in Poland, Category:Nazi leaders executed in the Soviet Union, and Category:Nazi leaders executed in Yugoslavia.Hoops gza (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename All per updated nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there any reason to subdivide this category by place the people were executed? We not just merge Category:Nazi leaders executed in Norway to the relevant parent categories? This seems to be a triple intersect 1-political party 2-being executed 3-nation executed in. We generally discourage triple intersects. Is there a reason to have such in this case? I am open to accepting such a reason, but I would like to see a clear argument for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The government that tried, sentenced and executed each Nazi is an important clarification. Also, this helps to clarify where each Nazi committed his or her crimes.Hoops gza (talk) 03:56, 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.

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) 11:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:The Tick to Category:Tick (comics)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. For some reason that I can't seem to find, comics-related articles always seem to lack "The" at the beginning. E.g. Flash (comics) and Joker (comics). It seems like a bad idea that is out of step with the MOS to me, but at the very least, there should be consistency. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment is it about the character "Tick" or the title "The Tick"? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Good question: Maybe rename Category:The Tick (franchise)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:The Tick (franchise) -- that works for me. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - while the character should be Tick (comics), the franchise should be at The Tick - this is a case where the article needs renaming and/or splitting, not the category. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please see WP:NCC#The. - jc37 02:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per comics naming guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 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.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Cities and towns of the Byzantine Empire to Category:Populated places of the Byzantine Empire
• Nominator's rationale There is no reason to exclude Populated places of the Byzantine Empire that were neither cities nor towns from this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This clearly got missed when most such categories were moved to "Populated places" some time back. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 14 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) 01:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Armenian emigrants to Category:Republic of Armenia emigrants
• Rename Category:Armenian emigrants to Italy to Category:Republic of Armenia emigrants to Italy
• Rename Category:Armenian emigrants to the United States to Category;Republic of Armenia emigrants to the United States
• Nominator's rationale we classify emigrants by the political jurisdicition they emigrated from. Thus we have categories like Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States and Category:Austro-Hungarian emigrants to the United States and Category:Czechoslovakian emigrants to the United States that would include people who moved from the city presently known as Uzhgorod to the United States (as did some of my ancestor about 120 years ago) depending on what time they did so. The most recent emigrants from that city would be in ;Category:Ukrainian emigrants to the United States. With Armenian people we have the complexed issue that Armenian is almost as much an ethno-religious designation as Jewish. It clearly is in Lebanon. The Armenian Genocide does not involve anyone living within the boundaries of the Republic of Armenia, and in fact there are areas along the northeast border of Turkey that were in the Russian Empire during the Armenian genocide. We should limit this category to people from the Republic of Armenia, but the current name is unlikely to achieve that result.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with the American category I had to relocate about half the people because they actually were emigrates from the Russian Empire. the Soviet Union, the present nation state of Russia, the Ottoman Empire or Syria. The current name causes too many editors to assume it refers to ethnicity and not nationality to work well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose vigorously -- This nom is wholly misconceived: it is the result of a complete misunderstnading of the Armenian ethnicity. The result Republic of Armenia is the part of Armenia conquered by the Rusisans. However the makority of the Armenian people are (or are descendants of) Turkish (or Ottoman) citizens, who are (or were) members of ethnic minorities in Turkey, Syria, and probably other Midlde Eastern states. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose even more vigorously than Peterkingiron, for the same reasons. This renaming would create a huge inaccuracy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the above two comments prove my point. We do not categorize emigrants by ethnicity. Emigration is a country to country move. We categorize them by origin country and destination country. The people in these categories are people who moved from, or were nationals of, the Republic of Armenia, and went to other countries. If they went from the Ottoman Empire, Lebanon, Syria, France, the Russian Empire or some other starting point, they are put in categories based on starting in that country. Emigration is a movement between nations, and so needs to be defined based on the national identity, not the ethnicity, of the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Again I would point out this has nothing to do with ethnicity. The Republic of Armenia is the area of an indepdendent Armenian nation that has existed since 1991. People who moved from the area of the current nation to some other nation in 1970, to pick a random year, would go in Category:Soviet emigrants or a specific destination sub-category. However if someone moved from the modern boundaries of Armenia to Moscow in 1970 they would not be emigrating and would not belong in an emigrant category based on that fact. Likewise, Stephen Austin was an emigrants even though he stayed within the present boundaries of the United States. Emigration is an act that only exists in the political and historical context in which it occurs. People who moved from Rome to London in AD 150 were not emigrants, those who did so in AD 1945 were.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Since these categories only at present contain people who emigtrated from the Republic of Armenia the rename would not create an inaccuracy at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because you removed the others! LeSnail (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment We categorize people by the country they emigate from. We do not categorize emigrants by ethnicity. I put every person in the proper category for the country they emigrated from. I applied the category as it is meant to be applied. My argument is that the current name is not clear enough and so we should go to a more clear name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. An attempt to be too technical. Categorization cannot always achieve perfect precision, and we must not attempt to do so if it results in the category system being more pedantic than most sources are in discussing broad categories of people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 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.

The result of the discussion was: No merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Archaeological sites in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Archaeological sites in Ireland
• Nominator's rationale Archeological sites are places associated with history, primarily well over 100 years ago. The Republic of Ireland was formed less than 100 years ago. There is no logic behind this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably Merge as nom. The problem with this category is that certain articles use "Ireland" when they mean "Republic of Ireland". These should be renamed. Nevertheless, some of the sub-cats and articles are more about how the Republic manages its archaeological resources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose no modern states were formed when the archeology in Category:Archaeological sites by country was formed, and I doubt it would be useful to delete all of these. (indeed, Ireland itself was not 'formed' as an country when these sites were built - so you're just choosing one Ireland over another arbitrarily). By country (and not by geography) is a consistent schema for this tree, we should maintain it. I would actually propose deleting Category:Archaeological sites in Ireland but that will have to wait for another day. --KarlB (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. This is a very silly nomination, and I hope that the nominator will reflect and withdraw it (or at least nominate all the archaeological sites by country categories).
  These archaeological sites are all to be found in the current boundaries of Republic of Ireland, and the same goes for all the other archaeological sites in 150 categories Category:Archaeological sites by country. A large proportion of the world's archaeological sites predate the foundation of any nation state, but as with many other fixed entities (such as cities, or buildings and structures), we categorise them for navigational convenience by the geographical scope of the currently-extant country in which they are located. Of course, we may also categorise them in many other ways, but Newgrange exists with the Republic of Ireland just as much as Stonehenge exists within the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose"Archeological sites are places associated with history" and are present in thier current location, and using 100 years as a cut-off? Tosh (repalcing my real phrase when I read this foolery). France is around in its current form since the 1940's, Germany less than 30 years. No logic. No real reason. 100 yrs!!! Tosh. Murry1975 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment then on what grounds do we have the parent category here that designates something that is not a nation state at all? Something is flawed with the current schema where we haphazardly use Ireland/Republic of Ireland without any reasoning as to why we are differentiating between the two. The problem is that people say "Ireland" for "Republic of Ireland", and yet we pretend that it is a reflection of common usage to differentiate the two, and then people go on ramgages of insults against those who suggest that we should bring some sort of order to the current system which looks like an open endorsement of the IRA POV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the pattern here seems to be to engage in ad hominem attacks on anyone who suggests change, while ignoring the fact that if we are defining archaeological cites by the modern nation state in which they are in, there is no reason to have Category:Archaeological sites in Ireland. For all his insults towards me, Murry1975 has provided zero explanation of why we need two categories if we are doing the categorization by modern nation states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment John Pack Lambert, please read WP:NPA, I have not insulted you, please show where. When you cant please strike the comment as it itself is a breach of NPA. "looks like an open endorsement of the IRA POV" ??? What does that mean? Do you know what the IRA POV? Or even if they would have one on this? Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment JPL, you are entitled to your views on categories, but the way you have been approaching these Irish categories is highly disruptive. You have:

  1. been systematically removing Foo in RoI and Foo in NI categories from their Foo in Ireland parents (e.g. e.g. [1], [2], [3] without leaving an edit summary in any case
  2. Outrageously accused those who disagree with you of promoting a "system which looks like an open endorsement of the IRA POV" -- thqt's an outrageous slur on other editors
  3. Made a group of similar nominations, some of which could and should have been combined, and all of which relate to a broad and fundamental objection you have to a wider system of categorisation. Rather than attacking the existing structure piecemeal, you should (per WP:MULTI) have opened a centralised discussion.

  Enough already. Please pursue your case in a more constructive consensus-building way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment saying "tosh" to someone's idea is clearly ad hominem attack. Acting like things in northern Ireland are somehow connected with somke mythical place of "Ireland" when in fact they are clearly within the United Kingdom is an endorsement of the IRA POV. The clear directives is to name categories "Republic of Ireland". There is no reason that Northern Ireland categories should be other than under the country of the United Kingdom, since that is the country Northern Ireland is in. There is no clear reason to have any Ireland category at all. We do not generally have categories for islands, especially not for most of the things that are being discussed here. Saying I am wrong and dismissing my valid points is not a way to interact with me. The truth is that putting things in Northern Ireland in the same country category as things in the Republic of Ireland only makes any sense at all if you have the IRA POV. Otherwise it is just total and utter fiction. I am going to say the truth, and the truth is the current category system advances the IRA's POV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment commenting "tosh" on the proposal isnt the same as an ad hom attack. The current system advances the IRA POV? I will do some OR on that later and get back to you. Murry1975 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well you also called my idea "foolery". The notion that the island of Ireland is all one country is the position of the IRA. It is not at all the political reality. There is no political connection between Norther Ireland and the rest of the island, and that is what we are categorizing by in the by country categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JPL, the usage of 100yrs as a cut-off is indeed unfounded and foolery. I think your phrasing is the problem. The position of the IRA, yes and several other groups and organisations. Not all with the background of the IRA- a shocking comment that could have a chill effect- that runs parallel. Is there no political connection? There are lots of cross border organisations, both political and non-political. There is a great piece [4] by Karl Brown. Murry1975 (talk) 20:57, 17 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 to merge. Also, considering the arguments (on various "sides") concerning this, there would seem to be sufficient cause to allow for revisiting (renominating/re-discussing) Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28#Category:Healthcare_by_country. - jc37 01:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare by city of the United States to Category:Health in the United States by city

Propose merging Category:Healthcare in the United States by state to Category:Health in the United States by state

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_5#Category:Healthcare_in_England_by_county, these subdivisions of the United States should be merged to their "Health" counterparts. Assuming this passes, I believe we can freely merge these as well.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not merge city and state categories in the United States if that is what the 'freely merge' statement is about. City and state are completely different structures. To this discussion must be added what common parent categories these newly named categories will be placed in. Example Category:Health by city or Category:Health by city in the United States for all the city health categories. Also discuss Category:Healthcare by city Hmains (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not mean that city categories would be merged into state categories, obviously. I meant that like the European categories noted earlier, the "Healthcare in" categories could be freely merged into their corresponding "Health in" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Health is a state of the body. Healthcare is the way we deliver and measure this. These are not the same things. I believe that we made a mistake on the England categories. Healthcare is by far the largest grouping of the articles here. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support Hi Vegaswikian. We meet again. Once again, I agree that health and healthcare are not the same thing. However, as you can see from previous arguments I and others have made, it is much more difficult to categorize articles based on whether they are about 'health' or 'healthcare'. I will maintain there is no consistent metric that can be found to classify a given article as one or the other - for example, where should we place medical education, or public health campaigns, or HIV/AIDs activism, or surgeon generals, or ministries of health, etc.--KarlB (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you have main articles, it is rather strange to argue that we can't decide where thing go. Clearly the items you mention all relate to healthcare. Health is very well defined as is healthcare. The fact that editors can and do make mistakes is not a reason to eliminate categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be great if you could suggest a metric by which a given article would be placed in 'health' or 'healthcare'. The argument we're having over at software applies here as well. We need to be able to differentiate. Also FWIW, I personally don't agree - Ministry of Health is not just about 'healthcare', and anyone from a Ministry of Health would agree. HIV/AIDS activism is really both - sometimes they are arguing for access to treatment, and sometimes they are arguing for better sex education (thus, not healthcare). The industry is not divided along the lines of health and healthcare, so there's no reason for wikipedia to try to do that either.--KarlB (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Healthcare is clear. One can always argue that some articles belong in multiple categories and there is nothing wrong with that. In some cases that is the correct and proper solution. So the fact that some of your examples might need multiple categories does not continue to say that the two categories need to be merged. Simply put healthcare is not the same as health. They may be related but they are not the same! Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment I'm not saying the cats should be merged because some articles will be in two categories. I'm saying the cats should be merged because there is no consistent, agreed upon or consensus metric we can apply to decide whether a given article is 'health' or 'healthcare' (for example, you and I just disagreed on Ministry of Health). Could you humor me please on this? If Healthcare is so clear, please tell me how you would divide the following categories of articles - a) health, b) healthcare, or c) both: health law, health charities, health/medical professional societies, health advisory committees, medical research units, pharmaceutical-related entities, medical research databases, blood and tissue banks, longitudinal studies, health and medical portals, medical journals, water/sanitation, disease outbreaks, epidemiology, biological research, famous physicians, tobacco, HIV/AIDS, priority diseases, public health campaigns, self-care, personal/home care devices, yoga, acupuncture - and then tell me, based on what criteria, did you do your sorting, so that the same criteria can be applied to a new article that comes along? --KarlB (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that some editors are incapable of making good category decisions is not a reason to delete good, accurate and valid categories. Bottom line, there is nothing wrong with these categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I appreciate your thoughts. However, I get the distinct feeling you are avoiding the question - which I understand because it can't easily be answered, if at all! You seem to be very confident that articles can be divided between health and healthcare, but you haven't yet given a single example of how *you* would divide them. What are the criteria? How would you tackle the list I gave above? The definition of healthcare is the following: "Health care is the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in humans. Health care is delivered by practitioners in medicine, chiropractic, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, allied health, and other care providers. It refers to the work done in providing primary care, secondary care and tertiary care, as well as in public health." So what about medical education? Or medical research? or health policy? or health economics/finance? or drug development/discovery? or the development of home health devices? or fitness? or sanitation campaigns? HIV/AIDS advocacy? Where would you put a disease outbreak? Or a food poisoning scare? The point is, there are some things, like hospitals, which are clearly about healthcare. But some hospitals engage in teaching, or research, which isn't captured in your healthcare definition. So should the teaching hospitals go in both Category:Healthcare in Foo and Category:Health in Foo? The line is fuzzy, and there aren't any clear 3rd party sources we can draw from to classify a given article or entity as health or healthcare, because the industry uses the terms interchangeably, with little consistency. You keep on harping on the issue of editorial error, but my concern is not with editorial error. It is that we do not have, nor do I believe we could easily develop, a set of criteria on how to divide a given article from health or healthcare, given the complexity of the space and the number of things different actors do at all points along the health continuum. If you can demonstrate the contrary, rather than just saying with a wave of your hand that 'it's a good category', please suggest a solution. I believe in categories that are useful - like hospitals, medical associations, medical devices, surgical techniques, etc - but a top-level split between health/healthcare at a state level doesn't help anyone much. --KarlB (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You are trying to make the case that editors are not capable of determining what is healthcare and what is health. My case is that editors can and will. As to your last point, the healthcare systems in the states are totally different and demand those categories. Now, if you want to make the point that we don't need health by state, I might bite. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi, sorry I didn't mean to say we should not have health by state - I just meant to say, at the level of a state, having Category:Health in X and Category:Healthcare in X does not serve much purpose. As to the broader issue, I think we just have to agree to disagree. While I think editors can distinguish between the words 'health' and 'healthcare', I disagree that a determination of what goes where can be easily accomplished, or that it is even useful to divide this domain into provision of care and everything else. Take a look at Category:Health in the United Kingdom - how would you separate out healthcare there? And to what end? --KarlB (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I strongly agree with Vegaswikian's concerns about the distinction between health and healthcare, and I deplore the dumbing-down involved in merging these two category trees. Some work is needed in defining the boundaries between the two categories, but I don't see that editorial error is sufficient grounds for this dumbing-down. My only question is whether this merge has now gone too far to be stopped? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • thanks I would appreciate your inputs on how to divide this. If you see my previous CfDs, I listed a number of different categories and types of articles, perhaps you would like to take a crack at how to divide them? Or you can go to Category:Health in the United Kingdom and suggest how it should now be split between 'health' and 'healthcare' - I think you will find that this particular distinction is just not worth it - separating out hospitals, yes - but separating out as a binary: 'care provision' from 'a bunch of other stuff' doesn't seem to work. I didn't make these noms because editors made errors. I made these noms because we don't have criteria on how to divide this incredibly complex space of health into one of two buckets.--KarlB (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • To start: Category:Healthcare and Category:Health looks like a good split. This needs to be perpetuated down to the country and sub-country categories. Hmains (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Further, by reversing the recent deletion of the Healthcare by country categories, most of the category work would be in place and then routine review would handle the rest of the work. Hmains (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The current overlap between Health and Healthcare includes the following: Health economics, Health education, Health policy, Health sciences, Medicine. As far as I can tell, all of the articles present in the Healthcare by state tree fall into one of those categories, thus the division in Health and Healthcare can't really help us at all. The only exception is hospitals, which already have their own sub-category tree which is not implicated here. --KarlB (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Health and healthcare are distinguishable, and I am not persuaded by the arguments against. Medicine, for example, is a type of healthcare, and a lot of of coverage of health-related issues is on medical topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  comment Thanks. I would note that a) Medicine is its own topical category and b) Medicine is classified under both 'Health' and 'Healthcare'. Several people have argued that health and healthcare are distinguishable, which they are of course as terms, but in terms of categorizing articles at a state level, I don't think they are much use. No-one has yet provided a method to divide the categories, and it's quite difficult, because health is (often) the outcome of healthcare, and in the world of institutions, people, and society, the two are hopelessly intertwined. I urge you not to focus on the easy cases, like a hospital that only provides care, but on the borderline cases, like a department of health, which monitors population health for the state, but also manages a network of health clinics - where should that go? Or a medical research entity, which does research on disease, and treatments - where should it go? Another example is an article on obesity - that article may cover obesity as a health issue, but may also cover medical treatments like surgery, or healthcare interventions like dieting or exercise. I note that the 'disease' tree is currently under 'Health', but would that mean that a description of HIV/AIDS in California would only go in the 'Health in California' category, and not in the healthcare cat as well (given that treatment is an important issue of that disease?) If many articles end up in both categories, then there isn't much point in *having* two categories in the first place. Allow me to repeat the question I asked above, and which no-one has answered: "How you would divide the following categories of articles a) health, b) healthcare, or c) both: health law, health charities, health/medical professional societies, health advisory committees, medical research units, pharmaceutical-related entities, medical research databases, blood and tissue banks, longitudinal studies, health and medical web portals, medical journals, water/sanitation, disease outbreaks, epidemiology, biological research, famous physicians, tobacco, HIV/AIDS, priority diseases, public health campaigns, self-care, personal/home care devices, yoga, acupuncture, massage therapy - and then tell me, based on what criteria, did you do your sorting, so that the same criteria can be applied to a new article that comes along? --KarlB (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, the precise details of some of the finer points how to split the two should be the subject of further discussion. But most of your list seems to be predicated the basis that medicine cannot be adequately accommodated simply as a type of healthcare, which is contradicted by the lead para of the article medicine: "Medicine is field of applied science and art of healing. It encompasses a variety of health care practices evolved to maintain and restore health by the prevention and treatment of illness in human beings." (emphasis added by me). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry perhaps my point wasn't clear. IMO, there is no "right" answer to the question I posed above; it is based on my reflections (and perusals of hundreds of articles in the health domain) that there wasn't really a decent way to divide this world into one of two buckets - there is too much overlap, too much bleeding over at the edges, and the health/healthcare industry is totally inconsistent in its use of terms, using one in the place of the other constantly, so we have no 3rd party sources to rely on when sorting articles. Is the department of health primarily about healthcare, or about health? hard to say... I feel we can't come to an easy, clear metric to determine when a topic is about health and when it's about healthcare - if people are saying we should keep these cats, then *please* provide at least some initial guidance on how. If you're tempted to say "it's easy, healthcare is about treatment", please consider all of the things which are behind that treatment - drugs, drug development, fundamental research, training/education, institutes, policy, health promotion, insurance, cohort studies, population health,etc, and where they should be placed. Even in the Category:Health and Category:Healthcare trees it suffices to go one level deep in either tree before you find hundreds of articles or categories that are mixes of both, but contained in only one - for an example, check out Category:Diseases_and_disorders - seems a shoe-in for health, since it's about human health, but almost every single disease article goes over details of imaging, diagnosis, symptoms, treatment, etc, thus indicating its actually about healthcare. While there are a few clear-cut cases, the bulk of articles in this space cover both health and healthcare. Again, no-one has responded to my questions, and it makes me wonder why. If we maintain these categories, which 2 different editors have claimed are crystal clear, could I ask them to take a shot now at proposing what differentiates one from the other (not as terms, but as navigational sorting buckets). If I'm looking for a particular article, say about HIV prevalence and treatment in Texas, how should I decide which category to search in? --KarlB (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl, it's not that complicated.

  Drugs, drug development are used in medicine, which belongs under healthcare.

  Training belongs under healthcare. Education likewise, unless it is public health education.

  Insurance comes in two types. Medical treatment insurance belongs under healthcare, but life insurance (including cover against loss of income due to illness) belongs under health.

  Disease and disorders belong under health. Breakout articles on treating those diseases belong under healthcare.

  Your example of "HIV prevalence and treatment in Texas" is not hard to answer. If you are interested in prevalence, look under health; if you are looking at treat ment, look under healthcare. If you expect to find a combined article, it should be under both trees. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• reply to categorization effort Thanks. Allow me to share how these mappings are done in the existing tree.
  • "Drugs, drug development are used in medicine, which belongs under healthcare." Currently, Category:Drugs is under Category:Medical treatments -> Category:Medicine -> Category:Health and Category:Healthcare. In other words, drugs are in both categories. Even Category:Drugs in the United States has always been under Category:Health in the United States, as it clearly contains some things that are not really about healthcare. RESULT: BOTH'
  • "Training belongs under healthcare. Education likewise, unless it is public health education." Currently, Category:Health education, which contains medical education, public health education, nursing, etc, is in, yup, you guessed it, in Category:Health and Category:Healthcare. The definition of Healthcare does not cover education for healthcare providers, but it seems reasonable to put it there; but it's also reasonable to put education and training under Health, because as much of the training is about understanding the state of the body as it is figuring out how to cure it. Also, I'm not sure I understand your separation of public health education - are you suggesting that a medical school with a school of public health should be dual classified as both Health and Healthcare (and thus when categorizing, people should be expected to understand the curriculum of a school, and which programmes it contains)? RESULT: BOTH
  • "Insurance comes in two types. Medical treatment insurance belongs under healthcare, but life insurance (including cover against loss of income due to illness) belongs under health." Category:Health_insurance is currently under Category:Health. Life insurance is not under health at all. However, the article Health insurance is currently under Category:Health economics which is, yes! - under both Health and Healthcare. Are you starting to see a pattern? RESULT: BOTH
  • "Disease and disorders belong under health. Breakout articles on treating those diseases belong under healthcare." Category:Diseases_and_disorders is currently under Category:Health - although Category:Infectious diseases is under Category:Medical specialties which it itself eventually under Category:Healthcare. However, I'm not sure what you mean about 'breakout articles' - almost every article about a disease I found lists the causes, symptoms, and treatment. Are you suggesting in that case, it should go in both? RESULT: 99% of articles on disease cover both, and thus would be in both per BHG
  • "HIV prevalence and treatment" HIV/AIDS_in_China is a good example - it covers both the epidemiology of the disease, and efforts to combat it through public health and clinical interventions. As you point out, this should really be in both trees. Or, as we've done with all the other countries of the world, eliminate the distinction, because the articles in wikipedia, and the sector in general, does not have a bright line dividing health from healthcare. RESULT: HIV/AIDS articles cover disease + treatment, thus would be in both
• I think BHG's good faith effort to categorize articles illustrates rather well why I believe in this merge. Her 'easy' classification, when mapped to how these articles are actually divided in the real tree of Category:Health and Category:Healthcare, results in each article being placed in both trees. If the majority of arbitrary articles will be in both categories, then there isn't a distinguishing factor by which we can decide whether an article is about health or healthcare, especially at the state level. Thus, these categories should be merged. The 'hospitals in X' will of course be retained as a useful listing, but drawing a fine line between health and healthcare, perhaps based on a long list of "ok, if it's medical education it goes here, but if it's this kind of education it goes there, but if ..." is just really really really not worth it. I urge you to reconsider, especially given the results of BHG's "easy" effort above. For another useful piece on the above, look here: Health_care_industry - as you can see there are conflicting definitions of the healthcare industry - for example, some put education/training of health professionals within the Health care industry, while others do not; some put administration of health insurance as part of healthcare, others do not.--KarlB (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • Karl, you have amply demonstrated that the categories are not currently divided effectively, but I have never disagreed with that proposition.
        However, you have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that we can't do a better division than applies at present, and I am not going to write an essay in reply. We'll just have to agree to differ. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

        I guess that's not quite the response I expected. Are you saying Health and Healthcare need to be *more* separated? I'm not sure how we would do that - it would involve a lot of splitting of hairs - any suggestions you have would be most welcome - I'm rather afraid of that tree, its a mess. As of now they are hopelessly intertwined; there are many 'healthcare' related subjects that actually are not within the 'healthcare' tree at all, and many topics that are really not about medical treatment end up deep in the Healthcare tree - so we can't rely on that tree to help inform the US-state specific division.--KarlB (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per KarlB. It is true that health and healthcare are very different things. However it is rare to talk about one without the other. Therefore as KarlB has amply demonstrated almost every article that belongs in one category tree also belongs in the other. I can't see a point in maintaining two separate category trees that are necessarily going to overlap as extensively as these must. BHG seems to still believe that finer distinctions can be made, so as to separate articles into only one tree. However, this is not tenable if most articles whose main topic is clearly "health" also extensively discuss "healthcare", and vice versa, as KarlB has claimed and I agree. LeSnail (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose merge; re-create Category:Healthcare in the United States which should never have been deleted in the first place. Despite some necessary and helpful overlap, the concepts of Health and Healthcare are obviously and demonstratively different. 'Health' is what you seek; 'Healthcare' is one way of obtaining it. This is simple. Healthcare is a subset of Health and that is correctly reflected in Wikipedia Healthcare categories being subcategories of Health categories. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the line between "health" and "healthcare" is too technical to expect editors to consistently use it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete without prejudice to later creation. Given the circumstances of Azawad it will take a while before arrangements are clear. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Regions of Azawad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:People by region in Azawad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Azawad does not have an administrative division yet. The regions listed in the category are Regions of Mali. The "Independent State Azawad" (declared independent on 6 April) is very unstable and has not yet established a fix administrative structure. Therefore, the category is speculation. It is not even clear where exactly its border with (Southern) Mali lies. RJFF (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation It has only been seven days since Azawad was declared. It lacks any outside recognition, which is not a deterent from categories, but should be cause for patience. Until they have a clear southwest border, and clearly define sub-national units, we should avoid having categories related to such units. If these names are preserved it may be advisable to create seperate articles for the units under Mali and the later units under Azawad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudiced to recreation per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- If this defection succeeds in establishing itself as an independent country, I expect that we will be redesignating some of the regions of Mali to such a category, but for the moment we do not need it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Azawad is an independent country. Mali has no power over it. Just because other countries have so far refused to recognize the reality on the ground does not mean it is any less real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being real doesn't mean that it has regions. Azawad hasn't set up an administrative structure yet ergo no regions. --RJFF (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Premature, by any reasonable measure. I have also added Category:People by region in Azawad to this nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Object against discussing both categories together. This discussion has been going on for five days and several users have commented on Category:Regions of Azawad, but not on Category:People by region in Azawad. So, the deletion of both categories shouldn't be decided in one process. And "regions of Azawad" is not the same as "regions in Azawad". There are no regions of Azawad, because Azawad doesn't have an administrative division. But arguably, there are (Malian) regions in Azawad. See also Bearcat's remarks below. --RJFF (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it if you like. But I would anticipate it to be very unlikely that consensus would decide to treat the two categories differently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a trickier one than it's being made out to be, actually. While it's undoubtedly true that Azawad doesn't have any formalized administrative divisions yet, all these really are is containers to crosslink Category:Azawad to the existing Malian categories that are relevant. I don't know if maybe renaming to something like Category:Regions of Mali within Azawad would be a viable temporary solution here — but regardless of its long-term prospects for stability or its degree of international diplomatic recognition, as long as Azawad exists and the Malian regions in question are within its claimed territory, the categories do have to be linked into Category:Azawad somehow. And accordingly, outright deletion which leaves them entirely unazawadified (sorry for the neologism, but you get my drift) is not an option. Rename to something more reflective of the complexity and uncertainty of the situation; I offer Category:Regions of Mali within Azawad for thought, but will accept any suitable rename that balances the reality against the fact that there does need to be some form of parentage to these regional categories from Category:Azawad. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a necessity to "azawadify" Malian regions. There is no precedence to divide a country into administrative units established by another country. Let's wait for the situation to stabilize and Azawad establishing an administrative structure, and if they decide to use the same divisions as Mali, there is no one stopping us from re-creating this category. And if Azawad should collapse, the category is redundant anyway. --RJFF (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think for now the only articles that should be placed under Azawad are those that clearly are about Azawad and its function. While we do not have to defer to the international community and wait until they recgonize Azawad to classify anything based on it, there is no reason to rush into the matter. There is a presidential election scheduled for Mali on April 29th. How those in Azawad interact with the election, assuming it actually happens (this is much less for sure going to happen than most elections, although it appears to be on for now), will at least be a first step toward something concrete. Azawad may be the next South Sudan or it may be the next Biafra. It is far too soon to tell, so we might as well wait until things are more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As we see, Azawad is not a state yet. Gao, Azawad „capital”, is under control of anti-independent islamist Ansar Dine, as well as Timbiktu. Area claimed by MNLA, as so called Independent State of Azawad, is only partially under control of pro-independent guerrillas. Independent State of Azawad is unrecognized, so no one recognized any territorial claims of MNLA authorities. Today we don’t know in which area Independent State of Azawad is de facto established, and which areas are under anti-independent guerrillas. Some parts of Gao and Timbuktu regionas are, for sure, part of Mali not Independent State of Azawad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.75.159.33 (talk) 08:07, 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.

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 decade categories to year categories and century categories for 1700s on. There is no clear "architecture by structure type and decade" scheme on Wikipedia. Per User:Andy Dingley, the goal should be to keep the granularity as fine as we can, and from the 1700s on, all of the bridges have clear year-of-completion dates (some of which I have added as part of the close) except for three: Old North Bridge (1760s), Camelback Bridge (1870s), and Kuala Krai Bridge (1920s). These can be kicked into the centuries categories until better data is found on them, assuming it exists. What to do with the pre-1700 categories is a little less clear, however. Many of them have clear end dates, but many others do not. I suggest we categorize as many of them by year as we can, and see what we are left with.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

• Category:Bridges completed in the 1100s to Category:12th-century bridges and Category:Buildings and structures completed in yyyy or Category:Bridges completed in yyyy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no reason to have these underpopulated by decade categories. Classifying by century completed as a structure and by century as a bridge is sufficient. Target categories will vary based on the other existing category structure. If consensus supports, then I'll add more categories to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:12th-century bridges only. Will Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1120s get adequately populated, if created? CAn we even be that certain as to the precise date of completion in many cases? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally support JPL (below), but should not "12th century bridges" be a subcat of the "buildings and structures" one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:12th-century bridges already has as a parent category Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 12th century. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the 12th century bridges category and for now Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 12th century. Once this is done we can assess if there is enough material to split that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate Merge to century categories JPL identified above. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have added the categories for post 17th century bridges. At this point the by year categories start becoming reasonably populated so at this point we probably should start using the by year categories, no matter what is decided for the earlier centuries. Also, if this closes with a consensus to do something, the easiest way to fix the population of the 1700 and later categories would be a new template for the by year categories which I would be willing to write. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong oppose this apples-and-oranges catch-all. This nomination is trying to do two very different things. Firstly it seeks to upmerge underpopulated by-decade categories from the medieval era, which is probably a good idea in principle, but needs more discussion of cutoff points. That seems to have been the original nomination, but scrutiny of it has gotten lost by the addition of a wholly different objective: the removal of by-decades categories en masse right up to the present. That is an entirely separate issue, because those later decades categories are well-populated (usually as containers for by-year categories), and it is very mischiveous of the nominator to have added on a separate idea.
  For some of the mid-range periods nominated, decades are a more appropriate grouping than the overly-narrow year categories. The removal of the decades categories for the later periods seems pointless, because they are merely container categories (apart from articles some bridges whose precise completion period is unknown, tho on my quick scan I didn't find any) ... and they fit neatly into the existing structure of chronological categories, which has centuries, decades and years. I accept that even the decades categories are too narrow for the early periods, and that centuries would be better, but any flattening of the structure should proceed in an orderly manner by removing first the most-specific categories, rather than by pulling out the middle. If the nominator wants to move to a general removal of the by-decades categories, zie make a specific nomination for that purpose, and not sneak it in here; but unless there is a general consenus to remove by all by-decade categories, then I see no reason to single out bridges. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note, many of the building and structure categories have not used by decade clasifications since the by century ones are not over populated. Also when you use the by decade categories, which are more correctly groupings by the 3rd digit of the year, it causes categorization problems since the first one covers two centuries. Given that finer navigation is easily accomplished by category navigation templates doing away with the extra level of categorization does not present much of a problem. When you add in the fact that there are related category trees that are working well without mislabeled decade categories, retaining them with their minor problems offers nothing. Container categories do serve a purpose, but in this case using century categories for that purpose work very well. Why use 11 container categories when 1 works? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, at least for the 18th century onwards.

This is a terrible nomination, because it falls into the ever-popular wiki-trap of seeing a meaningless consistency as somehow being a valuable goal. In particular, it assumes that it's appropriate to write the coverage of Victorian bridges to the same granularity as medieval bridges. Does no-one stop and think about the implications of some of these changes, rather than being too busy playing at serious admin bizniz?

For medieval bridges, the granularity at the century level is probably about right. There are few of them appearing as articles, the sourcing of the build dates is less clear, the rate of technical change was less rapid. There is less reason to sub-divide and less ability to do so reliably.

For Victorian bridges though, we're dealing with a large number, of well-recorded bridges, at a time of some of the greatest advances ever in civil engineering. Even a decade granularity might run into issues of over-population. For covering the historical development of bridge techniques (surely an encyclopedic goal, if anyone still cares about that), not merely individual bridges, decade granularity is a bare minimum.

I'm calling the 18th century as a vague cut-off for the great expansion (UK anyway) of substantial turnpike roads and canals that produced long-lived notable bridges. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 30 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.