Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 21 March 23 >

March 22[edit]

19nn in Northern Ireland[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.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Ireland categories, except 1920.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Northern Ireland didn't exist until 3 May 1921 so these categories don't make sense. I've put in a request at WP Templates to fix some of the templates involved although it's not necessary - the templates just test for the existence of the category so just deletion will fix things. Le Deluge (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMerge all up to 1919, but keep 1920. The important issue here is not the point at which Northern Ireland became a legal entity, but the point at which it became a clearly defined entity.
    Northern Ireland was created by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which was the first time that the area had been precisely defined. The concept of partition had been on the table since 1914, but the question of how many many counties (if any) should be excluded from an independent Ireland had been unresolved until then, so prior to the 1920 Act the area was undefined.
    No changes are needed to the templates, because as the nominator notes the templates test for existence of the NI categories. They will not create redlinks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I have amended my !vote from "delete" to "merge". The pre-1920 categories should be upmerged into the corresponding YYYY in Ireland categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1920 per BHG Rename pre-1920 to Category:19xx in Ulster and add a Category:1920 in Ulster, expand the scope of the categories to Ulster (the North of Ireland) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge pre-1920 categories into apropriate Ireland categories. Ireland was a unified place during that time period and to divide the category is to impose the present on the past. I can live with the 1920 category being kept, but all that pre-date that year should be merged to the Ireland categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Northern Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Per BHG - fine with keeping 1920 as is, but earlier should be upmerged. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - Per BHG, common sense really Finnegas (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge - Per BHG, but also put a note on the parent category informing editors why pre-1920 ones should not be created. Snappy (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2013 (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.

Anglo-Scots[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Anglo-Scots
  • Nominator's rationale This term has two contradictory meanings, either English people of Scottish descent, or Scottish people of English descent. We have specific sub-categories for both meanings. It is not useful to have this as a parent category of both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since the term is widely-used, it seems to me to be appropriate to have a category for it. If articles can be diffused into one sub-category or the other, then do so ... but it's likely that there will be some cases where this is not possible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category that says "Note the term 'Anglo-Scot' can mean a number of rather different things" is almost asking to be deleted. Suggest move articles to subcat where possible and listify any remaining articles before deleting the category (which, by the way, I assume should be titled "Anglo-Scots people"). DexDor (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for ambiguity - more trouble than it's worth.Jsmith1000 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If deleted, before deleted, as said by User:DexDor, the biographies listed should be moved to the appropriate subcategory. It's quite a long list of un-subcategorized bios, over 200 Mayumashu (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep until the nominator has moved all possible articles to the correct subcategories here and then reconsider based on what is left over. Hmains (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2013 (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.

People's Republic of China Singers[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. BHG brings up a good point, but since all these are singers from China, there's no reason not to merge. The greater point can be dealt with in another nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly goes against every sister category in Category:Singers by nationality. Beyond that we already have Category:Chinese singers, which is being used as a by nationality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 24 March 2013 (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:Male film directors[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is pointless. Most film directors are men. This category will become an unmanageable size. Female film directors are a minority and therefore a notable subset justifying their own special category. Fantr (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prior discussion stressed a preference for assessing each categories on its own merits which is why it resulted in a "keep" consensus, not specifically retaining the male directors category per se. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think the category is necessary. Directing a film is not a gender specific profession like actors/actresses who generally play gender defined roles. It's not like men direct action films and women direct romcoms is it? It seems the only reason for the existence of this category is solely because one exists for female directors; a subcategory for female directors exists because being a female film director is inherently noteworthy, since it is by and large a male dominated profession. It seems the only reason this category exists is for some bizarre sex equality reason. If we are going to retain this category I would like to see some valid reasons for grouping male film directors together. Betty Logan (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Same rationale as I argued in the past - yeah, it seems unbalanced that we should have a category for women directors and not men directors, but that's because the field and the coverage are really unbalanced. There's a reason the news didn't make a huge deal over Tom Hooper's winning the Oscar in 2010 the way they had for Kathryn Bigelow the year before. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What was it Dr Johnson said, "a woman's directing a film is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all." – or words to that effect?[1] Thincat (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Johnson died over a century before the emergence of films, this looks like a spurious quote that should have no part in this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BrownHairedGirl wrote elsewhere "per the long-standing guidance at WP:CATGRS, at WP:Cat gender, a female category does not have to be balanced by a male one, and vice-versa. Both should be assessed on their individual merits, which is what this group nomination fails to do. It lumps together male film directors (which looks to me like a hard-to-justify category) with male actors (which has some prima facie merit, because as you point out men cannot usually play female parts)." - Fantr (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the above. The split seems an odd one to have and really is unnecessary. -SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- if we are to have a category for females, we should conversely have a category for males. My view is that this is not a profession where gender should be particualrly relevant, so that it would be better to merge both genders back to "film directors". In any event, Deleting is the wrong solution, as it will lose data. If we are not keeping the category the solution is merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above where I quote BrownHairedGirl: "per the long-standing guidance at WP:CATGRS, at WP:Cat gender, a female category does not have to be balanced by a male one, and vice-versa." How will "deleting" lose data? - Fantr (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as male film directors are the overwhelming majority, this doesn't seem to be a useful subcat. -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this does not meat the requirements for a gender specific category. In theory we should merge, but in practice the contents are all in nationality-specific sub-cats so we should just delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The combination of being male and a film director is not a defining characteristic, nor is there any evidence that third parties categorize directors in this manner, as they do for actors and actresses. Alansohn (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2013 (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:Scottish surnames[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. 'Category:Scottish surnames' lists surnames of Scottish origin. Mayumashu (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We have been getting rid of loanword categories, but there are a lot of articles on surnames, mostly effectively dabpages. This is a useful system for categorising them. We may need a follow up for otehr ethnicities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Read Scottish surnames. The cat also covers names that don't originate in Scotland. Classic 'Scottish surnames' like Beaton, Bruce, Cameron, Gordon, Graham, Montgomery, Sinclair, Wallace, and on and on. For example, these surnames are derived from locations in England, Flanders, France, Normandy, and Wales. Furthermore, these surnames were borne as surnames on the continent or in England and Wales, before members of these families introduced these names into Scotland. There are many 'Scottish surnames' that don't originate in Scotland.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge The former seems to be the broader and more widely covered category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem with the broader scope is that it could include the surname of anyone who is Scottish - with British citizenship and Scottish raised. We had Category:American surnames and a bunch more by nationality before but got rid of it because, for example, any number of surnames are American (i.e. belong to a citizen of the U.S.), making listing them, let alone categorizeing them, near pointless. But surnames that originated outside of Scotland a long time ago but then became Scottish - classic ones like Graham and Bruce as said above - do belong. Can they be said to have "Scottish origin", defining the word 'origin' loosely? I guess not. We could name this category Category:Traditional Scottish surnames, but how many years old would be the cut-off - when can Franchitti be included, for example? Mayumashu (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand what you're getting at (just because someone can pick any old surname out of a Scottish phone book doesn't mean we should treat it as a 'Scottish surname'). I think we should make it clear on the cat's page that the only names that should be encompassed in the cat are those that have a reliable secondary source identifying them as 'Scottish' (not a primary source like a phone book or census roll, etc.). I don't think we should be making cut-off dates, or creating additional criteria, or anything like that. Since there are so many books on the subject of these names, we should be ok if we just follow them. So I'd prefer plain 'Scottish surnames' over 'Traditional Scottish surnames', and think that 'Surnames of Scottish origin' and 'Scottish surnames' are both legit cats. I understand why editors decided to delete 'American surnames', although I would've voted 'keep' because the mass of reliable books on that particular subject shows that it's a legit way of categorizing names.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both The more I think about it, the less it makes sense to classify surnames by nationality. In the case of Scotland too many of them have appeared elsewhere. How long does a family have to be prominent in a location for their surname to be connected with that place? Maymushu brings up a good point. Do Surnames that have had notable people in England since the 16th-century, even if they were originally Italian, count as English? On the other hand, is Mountbatten an English surname, or do we still claim that Prince Charles sports a foriegn surname in part, sort of. I mean, there have only been Mountbattens since the First World War, the name did not exist at all before then, and it is still basically derived from a German plae.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manual merge, only where Scottish origin is claimed in the article or clear from the sub-cat (I'm willing to do it). The target should be kept, as part of Category:Surnames by culture. I support the comments above that we cannot categorise by nationality, and therefore I'm nominating one sub-cat Category:Scottish English surnames for deletion. Category:Scottish clans provides a way to categorise notable Scottish families whose surnames are of other origin. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Brianann MacAmhlaidh's logic. Many of the surnames are not of Scottish origin, but are rather surnames "strongly associated with Scotland" and I don't think we need a category with such a convoluted name. Yes, at the margin, there are issues that might make categorisation controversial and complex, but it seems to me these are exceptions. To make the same point another way, which of the current Scottish names so categorised do opposers think are in this camp? It's easy to see why the opposite might apply to Category:American surnames, and the Mountbatten example is just an Aunt Sally. Ben MacDui 15:30, 21 April 2013 (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:A-pressen[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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The media conglomerate changed its name from A-pressen to Amedia in 2012. Category should reflect company's current name and match main article. Arsenikk (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (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:People self-identifying as problem gamblers[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In November 2012, the categories People self-identifying as alcoholics and People self-identifying as substance abusers were deleted. The same issues apply here: it's vague, unmaintainable, and a potentially serious BLP problem. szyslak (t) 10:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (from category creator), while i disagree that the categories are inherently problematic, and feel that the substance abuser categories were potentially very useful and informative, consensus was that they go away. unless there is some consensual movement to recreating them, then the problem gambling category needs to go away as well. I wasnt going to nominate it for deletion, but i wont interfere with this consensus.(mercurywoodrose)50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons we deleted the alchoholics and drug-addicts categories. The potential to use these to malign people who do not fit far exceeds any gain from having the category. It will also generally not be related at all to the actually things that made the person notable, so it just invites needless category clutter on people who are much better categoriezed in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2013 (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:Healthcare policy in the United States[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename. There are times when "healthcare" might be a useful distinction from "health," but this one doesn't seem to get traction among the commenters. Category:Health policy uses "Health" instead of "Healthcare," and there are no other "healthcare by country" categories. There are several other categories (e.g., Category:Books about health/Category:Books about health care) where some combination/renaming might make sense. (Also, perhaps we should settle whether it's "healthcare" or "health care," since the categories are all over the map on that front.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
  1. Google searches and reference books do not distinguish between health policy and healthcare policy.
  2. Healthcare policy redirects to Health policy
  3. There is no Category:Healthcare policy category - only Category:Health policy
  4. This category contains items which are clearly beyond the remit of treatment and care (such as nutritional labeling, smoking, cancer, etc).
  5. A given policy discussion is never confined to just treatment and care and always has aspects of public health, medical research, financing, law, privacy, etc, so it also isn't useful to have two categories - otherwise every "healthcare policy" would also be categorized as a "health policy".
Since "health" is the more broad description and is more widely used per google searches, this category should simply be renamed. Note: There was a related CFD last year to rename Federal Healthcare Legislation to Category:United States federal health legislation - please see the link for additional discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:United_States_federal_healthcare_legislation. Another related CFD: Merge Category:Healthcare law to Category:Health law - discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at two recent books - one with the world "health care policy" in the title, and one with the word "Health policy" in the title.
  1. Health Care Politics And Policy in America; Kant Patel and Mark E. Rushefsky (2006) - description: "An overview of health care politics and policy, featuring both an historical review of the development of health care policy in the US, and an analysis of recent health care reform efforts. The book emphasises the role of the state and federal government, and the private sector in health policy." Notice that the lede describing this book about health care policy then goes on to call it health policy!
  2. History and Health Policy in the United States: Putting the Past Back In (2006); Rosemary A. Stevens, Charles E. Rosenberg, Lawton R. Burns (2006). Chapter headings include: Recent political history of the Health-care System, Medical specialization, Patients or Health-care Consumers, The Democritization of Privacy, Controversies over Public Health, Disease-prevention, National institutes of health, Long-term care and Medicaid, Mentally Ill, Emergency rooms, Hospital system failures, HMO. I've bolded the topics which are more clearly about treatment and provision of healthcare services vs public health or other approaches. This book groups it all together and doesn't form a sharp line between health policy and healthcare policy
Thus, if the academics writing books and papers about this don't make a firm distinction, we should not either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 08:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Health care" is a subset of the wider concept of "health", which encompasses a range of topics outside of "healthcare" (a term which is largely a rebranding of medicine, to make a more cuddly label for the businesses which operate in that field). The references cited above show that the two terms are not used interchangably.
    Topics such as nutrition, housing, sanitation and the environment are important parts of health policy, but are not healthcare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. Just to clear up confusion, we are not deciding on Health vs Healthcare, we are deciding on whether the outside world differentiates between Health policy and Healthcare policy. I submit, and the references I provided (and any other you care to look for) will support that academics, politicians, lawyers, and anyone else in this field do not differentiate in a consistent fashion between a Healthcare policy and a Health policy - a given book on healthcare policy will be replete with information on nutritional guidelines, and a given book on health policy will be replete with guidance for hospital management.
The World Health Organization, which is pretty much the normative agency in this space, defines Health policy as follows: "Health policy refers to decisions, plans, and actions that are undertaken to achieve specific health care goals within a society." Thus, they explicitly attach health policy to healthcare goals.
As an analogy, we could for example differentiate between the words teaching, education, learning and pedagogy, but it would be rather silly IMHO to have categories for teaching policy, education policy, learning policy, and pedagogy policy in wikipedia. In the same way, we don't have different articles for Health system and Healthcare system - the outside world doesn't differentiate.
At the end of the day, the decision in this debate should not be based on opinion, it should be based what the outside world thinks. From the category creation guidelines here, "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having." In the case of US healthcare policy vs health policy, for any particular policy, I can find a multitude of sources calling it a healthcare policy and a multitude of sources calling it a health policy. How shall we expect our friendly wikipedia editor to choose the right category, when the 3rd party sources are not consistent? The professionals in the outside world do not differentiate and will regularly use both terms in the same article (and meaning the same thing), in spite of the difference between health and healthcare - when it comes to policy it all gets blended. Thus, there is no use for two categories, and health policy is the preferred term since it's slightly more generic.
Allow me to ask a question - do you have any evidence, documentation, references, or any 3rd party sources at all which back up your assertion that Health policy is differentiated from Healthcare policy? If not, what sort of evidence would it take to convince you to change your mind?
You make a claim that nutrition is not part of healthcare - but one of the articles in this section is Nutrition analysis and it includes the following: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, signed into law March 23, 2010, includes a provision that creates a national, uniform nutrition-disclosure standard for food service establishments." - thus a supposed healthcare reform act includes reforms that have nothing to do with healthcare per your claim - does this mean we should classify any policy that has non-healthcare elements under Healthcare and Health? That's the crux of the problem - a given policy conversation is never *only* focused on treatment and care, or on broader health goals - they are almost always a mix of both. If every policy will be in both categories, what's the point of having two?
You also make a claim that the sources I provided do not use the terms interchangeably. Can you back that claim up somehow?
Finally, to continue with the provision of evidence, I will attach more references:
  1. Understanding health policy (3rd ed ), BODENHEIMER Thomas S., GRUMBACH (2002). From lede: "- Includes comparative information on health care policy in Canada, the UK, and Germany "; chapter headings: "1. Introduction: The Changing U.S. Health Care System 2. Paying for Health Care 3. Access to Health Care 4. Reimbursing Health Care Providers 5. Capitation Payment in Managed Care 6. How Health Care Is Organized 7. How Health Care Is Organized 8. Painful Versus Painless Cost Control 9. Mechanisms for Controlling Costs 10. Long-Term Care 11. The Prevention of Illness 12. The Quality of Health Care 13. Medical Ethics & the Rationing of Health Care 14. Health Care in Four Nations 15. National Health Insurance 16. Conflict & Change in U.S. Health Care 17. The Health Care Work Force 18. Conclusion: Tensions & Challenges 19. Questions & Discussion Topics Index" (Note: the bulk of this health policy book covers so-called healthcare issues.)
  2. A Framework for the Dissemination and Utilization of Research for Health-Care Policy and Practice, Maureen Dobbins RN, Donna Ciliska RN, Rhonda Cockerill, Jan Barnsley, Alba DiCenso RN (2004); link; From abstract: "Purpose: (1) The purpose of this paper is to construct a comprehensive framework of research dissemination and utilization that is useful for both health policy and clinical decision-making." (here, on the other hand, we have a paper on Health-care policy, that calls it Health policy in the abstract.)
  3. Decision Making in Health and MedicineM. G. Myriam Hunink, (2001). Quote: "In this book we explain and illustrate tools for integrating quantitative evidence-based data and subjective outcome values in making clinical and health-policy decisions. The book is intended for all those involved in clinical medicine or health-care policy... (here we have a switch from health-policy to health-care policy in the course of one sentence, with no clear difference in meaning intended.)
  4. Health Care & Public Policy: An Australian Analysis; George Rupert Palmer, Stephanie Doris Short. From the intro: "this book provides the first comprehensive introduction to health services and health care policy in Australia." then a quote from Chapter 2 on definitions: "Generally, the term health policy embraces courses of action that affect that set of institutions, organisations, services and funding arrangements that we have called the health care system.". Note that this book uses the term healthcare policy around 22 times, and the term health policy over 100 times. In my brief perusal, and in looking at the definitions, it is clear that the authors to not use these terms to mean different things.
I could go on, but I don't want to bore others reading this. If you can find an equal amount of references, that say health policy is X, and healthcare policy is Y, and they aren't the same thing, and this kind of policy is always called a health policy and this kind of policy is always called a healthcare policy, then we might have an argument for keeping this category. I have not found such sources, and frankly doubt they exist. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done cherrypicking a bunch of quotes to make your point. No doubt if you look in sources realted to healthacre, you will find many such uses of the shorter term.
the fact remains that topics such as nutrition, housing, sanitation and the environment are important parts of health policy, but are not healthcare ... and no matter how big your wall of text, it won't change that simple fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you weren't able to find any quotes that support your POV, so you accuse me of cherrypicking. Classy. Note to others following along - I have provided copious, cited references that show that professionals in the real world don't distinguish between healthcare policy and health policy, and will often alternate between the two in a given work. If necessary, I can provide additional evidence that policy discussions labelled "Healthcare policy" will often include topics such as environmental regulation, nutrition, exercise, healthy workplace, etc.
BHG on the other hand has made vague assertions, and is insisting on the difference between healthcare and health (which is *not* under discussion here!) - unfortunately she hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever that healthcare policy and health policy are differentiated by people who write about this. I will just leave this quote here, by none other than BrownHairedGirl:

but of course what matters here is not your judgement or mine, but the evidence of usage in reliable sources. I have offered empirical evidence of usage in reliable sources, and if you have some contrary evidence then please present it for scrutiny rather than simply making vague assertions.link

--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll happily dig out refs if you can clarify what you are contesting.
Are you claiming that topics such as nutrition, housing, sanitation and the environment are nothing to do with health? Or are you claiming that they are aspects of healthcare? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neither. I am claiming that
(a) topics such as nutrition, sanitation, housing, and environment are often covered in the same policy discussion and in the same sets of laws as topics like nursing and insurance and treatment guidelines
(b) that these discussions and laws are referred to by those writing about them as both "healthcare policy" and "health policy", and that those having these discussions do not distinguish between the two terms, and use them interchangably. I have provided ample evidence of such works above, and google can find many more. The famous "obamacare" act is an excellent example - it includes all of the above - nutrition, insurance, medical coverage, care, emergency room, .... everything - and if you search for example the NYTimes archive, they refer to it as "health care policy" perhaps slightly less frequently than they refer to the same discussion as "health policy"
(c) It is rare if not impossible to find a policy discussion which only includes things which you consider "healthcare", and it is rare if not impossible to find a policy discussion which only includes things which are "health" (but which avoid "healthcare"). For example, take smoking - the policy discussion will encompass treatment guidelines, public health measures, taxation, environment, research, cancer studies, etc etc - there is no clear dividing line between a "healthcare policy" for smoking and a "health policy" for smoking.
The problem with your argument is you are taking the dictionary definition of healthcare and the dictionary definition of health and then concluding (in spite of how countless references actually USE these terms) that health policy and healthcare policy are different. The references show that they are *not* different. For example, check the following NY times articles:
  1. Health Policy Is Carved Out at Table for 6 "WASHINGTON — On the agenda is the revamping of the American health care system, possibly the most complex legislation in modern history."
  2. In Debate Over Health Policy, Some Words Are Seldom Spoken "What has bioethics contributed to the current national debate over health care reform?"
If you think housing is not related to health care policy, here we have an NGO which has a whole page just devoted to that topic: [2].
The point is, these are inextricably intertwined, and no-one in this space is going around saying "ok, this is a health policy debate" and "ok, this is a healthcare policy debate". The real world usage is mixed, and asking wikipedia editors to somehow sort these in a consistent fashion is not reasonable and not based on any sources I've been able to find. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another wall of text, and more cherrypicking.
If you look for it, I'm sure that you can find pretty much every policy area being associated with healthcare: transport (ambulances are transport), energy (hospitals need energy for heat and to power all their systems), immigration (are illegal immigrants insured), etc etc. And since your job is focused on healthcare, I'm not surprised that's what you find.
However, there are many issues relating to health policy which do not fall under healthcare. For example, I'm sure that you can google away and find refs to "sanitation+heathcare", and then paste more walls of text ... but the fact remains that sanitation is one of the major issue of public health, and most of it is unrelated to healthcare. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to win an argument with someone who (a) provides zero sources (b) doesn't answer any questions asked to clarify their own argument and (c) accuses you of cherrypicking every time you provide overwhelming evidence from sources. BHG, why don't you try cherrypicking on your own, since it's apparently so easy, and find me a source, any source, that makes a *distinction* between "health policy" and "healthcare policy" - e.g. a source which defines these two terms, and then explains the difference between them, and provides criteria for deciding whether something is a healthcare policy or a health policy. And please don't come back with your tiresome cherrypicking accusations until you've brought some sources of your own... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again, Obi, with 2 questions about one simple issue: sanitation. You may want to note the WHO's statement at http://www.who.int/topics/sanitation/en/.
  1. Do you agree that sanitation is a health issue?
  2. Do you think that sanitation is a healthcare issue?
Once we have clarified that one, then we can go on to discuss other WHO-defined health topics such as food safety, occupational health, pesticides and air pollution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will answer your question in a slightly different way, because it doesn't really matter what I think, it matters what the sources say - and what is WP:DEFINING.
  1. "Are there a multitude of sources that use health policy to describe policies which include strategies to improve sanitation?" Yes.
  2. "Are there a multitude of sources that use health care policy to describe policies which include strategies to improve sanitation?" Yes.
  3. "Is sanitation an important part of public health?" Yes. "Does 'healthcare' include public health and preventative approaches?" Yes. "Is sanitation an important preventative approach that is employed by clinicians in primary care settings and are sanitation issues dealt with by policy makers who are discussing health care policy?" Yes yes and yes.
  4. "Are there a multitude of sources that use health policy to describe policies which include strategies around medicine, insurance, nursing, primary care, hospitalization, payment of providers, and the like - in other words, things BHG considers health care? Yes.
I feel like you believe we live in a world where there are books on "health care policy" that discuss medicine, surgery, hospitals, doctors, and so on, and then there are other books and papers on "health policy" that discuss food safety, occupational health, and sanitation. Unfortunately, we don't live in that world, and such books don't exist. Like health law vs health care law or health legislation vs health care legislation, in the real world, people don't draw the lines you want to draw, and they are impossible to draw anyway for reasons I've outlined elsewhere. Per Wikipedia:OC#OVERLAPPING, only one cat is needed here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your argument is essentially that health is a broader topic than curative health care service delivery. No argument from me on that point. And, policy discussions relevant to health extend beyond curative health care services. No argument there either.
However, I think you're missing my point - which is that 3rd party sources regularly use the term "health care policy" and in those "health care policy" discussions, they include topics such as sanitation, food safety, occupational health, nutrition, etc. You may dispute these sources, or claim they are *wrong*, but that's the terminology they have chosen to use, and in a choice between an editors opinion and peer-reviewed sources, we should choose peer reviewed sources.
There are 29,000 results in Google scholar that use "health care policy" and "health policy" terms in the same paper - and almost every paper I've looked at does not differentiate between the two: [3] I've referenced Obamacare already, which is equally described as "healthcare reform" and "health care policy" and "health policy" by academic sources and sites like the New York Times. health policy: 11,400 results health care policy: 13,400 results. The Obamacare discussion, while focused on reform of insurance, also covers a huge domain, including things like nutritional labeling, primary care, prevention, and other public health matters. If we take your proposed division at face value, it would mean we would have to create Category:Health care policy and Category:Health policy in the United States and then somehow find a way to reliably sort topics. Unfortunately, we have no outside sources which can help us, as there aren't *any* outside sources I have found that can draw a clean (or even muddy) line between "health care policy" and "health policy". Now you may say, ok, the sources are just being sloppy, but I think it's more subtle than that. Even a given pure "health care policy" discussion runs smack dab into all of the "health" issues - for example if you want to address diabetes, you don't only look at treatment and primary care and hospitalization, you also have to look at nutrition, food environments, food subsidies, school lunch programs, and so on. So it's actually impossible (and I've never seen) a real "health care policy" discussion in the US, or anywhere, that doesn't bleed over into the social determinants of health and broader public health issues. You bring up sanitation above, well there is first off an obvious and essential link for sanitation in the health care setting (e.g. making sure hospitals have proper hygiene control), but even beyond that, it is regularly the job of primary care officers in a given district health post to look after sanitation issues. There is no clean divide between health care and public health when you are actually doing the work, and there is no clean divide when policy makers are discussing interventions and targets.
This paper may provide a useful overview of the current and growing overlap between these domains: [4] - I thought this quote was relevant: "Improving population health will require activities in three domains: (1) efforts to address social and environmental conditions that are the primary determinants of health, (2) health care services directed to individuals, and (3) public health activities operating at the population level to address health behaviors and exposures". As you can see, they distinguish between determinants of health, public health activities, and health care services - but the policy discussions that follow, and the current measures being taken by the US federal government and state agencies in this domain are integrated, and becoming more so. So it just goes back to my original argument - any given "health care policy" discussion will include things beyond the scope of curative medical treatment, so would thus also be correctly categorized as a "health policy" discussion, and if every single discussion is in both categories, we don't need two categories in the first place.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really, seriously denying that there is a substantial literature on topics such as nutrition and sanitation which discusses those topics without including a major focus on health care? Really? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying that - I think you're misunderstanding me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm very that we have agreed that there are major of health policy issues which do not involve healthcare policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No no no. You keep making the same mistake. Healthcare != Healthcare policy. Yes I agree that pollution is not typically considered in the domain of healthcare; however, pollution is quite frequently discussed by those who debate what some call either "healthcare policy" or "health policy" - namely, they talk about what should we do about it, who should pay, how to treat victims, what research should we fund, etc etc. These conversations all happen at the same time, by the same groups of people. You call it cherry picking, but I'm just going by the sources. You still haven't produced any sources which differentiate between healthcare policy and health policy according to BHG definitions, which makes me think this is all a fanciful invention of yours - if you can't produce sources, it's just your opinion... To answer your question directly, no, there are no areas of health policy that I can think of that haven't also been described and written about in articles and books purporting to cover healthcare policy, and vice versa.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm just passing by, but might I make the comment that this is a very culturally-limited discussion, the idea of government health policy being framed in terms of healthcare is pretty much restricted to North America (qv List of health ministries) and so it's likely that any other members of this hierarchy would likely reject this name format in favour of Health policy in.... Personally I'd be tempted to just delete this category altogether, it's pretty much redundant given that its contents are already members of the Category:Health in the United States hierarchy.Le Deluge (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

note Wikiproject medicine and health and fitness have been notified of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2013 (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:Pakistani Arabs[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.
The result of the discussion was: deleted per WP:G3 as pure disruptiveness. The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created as deliberately disruptive behavior by User:SocialRanger, as admitted by that user here. RayTalk 03:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SuperSonicSpeedy Delete per don't tell me this will take 5 days to close. Ah, the bureaucracy! Everything must be done just so. Cover your rear, and all that rot wat.. SocialRanger (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- One of the articles is on an Arab who entered India during the Muslim expansion. The other two were Indians, who moved to Pakistan at or after Partition. For them any Arab ancestry is likely to be so remote as not to be defining. They might be categorised as Indian Muslims. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2013 (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.

Template:Christian-denomination-stub[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.
The result of the discussion was: closed, the problem was vandalism, since reverted; the template has been protected as a HVT. The Bushranger One ping only 08:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This template makes the main page where it is placed confusing. It talks about Roman Catholicism which results in an odd insert into other churches and adds a second ref line. I deleted it from the page Congregational Union of Australia. It needs to be changed or deleted. Aarghdvaark (talk) 02:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looking at the diffs on my system, I don't see anything about a second ref line or about Roman Catholicism here [5]. Are you sure it wasn't your browser somehow? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, so I've re-inserted the stub template in Congregational Union of Australia. I don't think it would be a browser issue though? I've checked with Firefox and Chrome on the updated page and they are both showing it is OK. ... Found the problem, it was vandalism on the stub template.[6] Sorted by user Johnmperry. Aarghdvaark (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhhhhhh, yeah, that would do it. I should have thought to check the template history! Glad this got sorted out. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 08:34, 22 March 2013 (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:Unique ships[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is, I believe, an example of categorising things by what they are not, which is something that is, I believe, generally and strongly discouraged. The "not" in this case is evidenced by the parent category: Category:Ship classes; this category tree is intended, therefore, to categorise ships that are not in classes (or, as sometimes defined, as being in single-ship classes) - that are (as the name states) unique. The problem is that this is, as noted, something they are not (i.e. part of the class), and it also isn't especially defining; many ships, including very many auxiliary ships, are unique, and in cases of ships that were purchased for naval service after being built for merchantile service, uniqueness is a given - being part of a class would be the oddity (although it does happen). The purpose of Category:Ship classes is to gather categories and articles on ships by class, and unique ships are, by their very definition, not that. Some of these categories (the Destroyers one, for instance) would get very large if fully populated, as well, containing articles related only by a shared lack of name, as it were. Therefore, as not being a sufficently defining charactistic of the ships in question, these categories should be deleted. Note that I have not nominated for deletion the subtree starting at Category:Unique ships of the United States Navy, as many of its contents are not properly categorised elsewhere in the Category:Ships of the United States Navy tree it also resides in; it will need to be dealt with seperately in a follow-up nomination for merging if this is deleted. The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SHIPS has been notified. [7] - The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as Category:Ships is intended for, ultimately, individual ships, since most ship class objects do get articles on the individual members, unlike the categories for cars, which have very few articles on individual cars. I just noticed that while "Category:Ships" is for individual ships, it includes in its tree all the articles on ship classes, which are not individuals. just another categorization headache, as an aside.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I couldn't put it better than the nominator. bobrayner (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Bobrayner. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion (and also appropriate handling of US Navy upmerges and whatnot). "Ships" and "ship classes" is a much more useful and intuitive distinction than "unique ships" and "ships." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Ships or more specific and appropriate sub categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • No upmerge necessary. All of the ships in these categories are already appropately categorised elsewhere. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment given the clear support here, I'll probably nominate the USN categories, after this closes, at CFDS for upmerge to their parents. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 29 March 2013 (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:Pharmacies of Vatican City[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: as Vatican Pharmacy notes in its introduction, "Farmacia Vaticana is the only pharmacy in the Vatican City".... 68.165.77.15 (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_22&oldid=1088120131"