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. – Fayenatic London 18:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dogtrot architecture in the United States to Category:Dogtrot architecture

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Everything here is in the US so why have the US as a subcategory? If this appears in other places then we can reconsider this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A merge would remove the articles from Category:Vernacular architecture in the United States. DexDor ^(talk) 22:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We could move the parent category under Category:Vernacular architecture in the United States to address DexDor's concern, since this seems to be strictly an American style based on the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be inconsistent with how we normally categorize things (the subcats of a in-the-US category are usually in-the-US categories or more specific e.g. in-NY) and would mean that if there were ever a non-US example then a load of recategorization would be needed. DexDor ^(talk) 06:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main article indicates this is a specifically American style which suggests to me there aren't many non-American examples of such buildings in the real world, rather than it being an editor needing to write the corresponding articles. I was able to find a couple listings for newish houses in Australia but nothing individually notable. No objection to recreating if additional content appearsRevelationDirect (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Target and rename subject to that name. According to that article, this is a US-only style, so that the target has chance of being better populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, because dogtrots are a US-only concept. It's basically the same as Category:Federal architecture, which is a US-only concept: we don't need an additional "Federal architecture in the United States" or an additional "Dogtrot architecture in the United States" because both, by definition, will be the only contents of the parent category. Just an extra level of category pages. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Colonial architecture in the United States to Category:American colonial architecture

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Al Kapone albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Considering there are only 2 things in this cat (and one is up for a prod) might be best to retire this cat. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if reduced to a single album. No comment on the validity of the articles. SFB 13:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: it's down to one page now, but don't we keep small album categories as part of Category:Albums by artist? – Fayenatic London 15:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The category is now empty. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy delete per G4 as essentially a re-creation of Category:Fictional rape victims, which was deleted here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Raped characters to Category:Rape

Nominator's rationale: Single member of category is Category:Mythological rape victims ― Padenton|✉   16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete extra layer of categorization unnecessary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 30 March 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Annette Moreno albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Elindiord (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as long as category contains an appropriate article, which it does. That article has been nominated for deletion, however. If it is deleted, this category can then be speedied. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to the article that was placed in here being deleted and the category now being empty --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Objection This pre-supposes the outcome of the AfD nomination for the one article in the category. (No objection to speedy if the article goes.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Pop rock albums by American artists per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Since this nomination was proposed, the only article was deleted by community consensus. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2015 (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. MER-C 12:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ministerialist party members of the Parliament of Queensland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is a current project going on to recategorise Australian MPs by party, but the Ministerialists in Queensland were never a party: they were a loose bloc of MPs that formed around various ministries, and the Queensland government refers to most of them as variously both "Ministerialists" or "Oppositionists" depending on who was in power. They're not a group that can or should be categorised together without context, the Australian politics WikiProject hashed this out a few days ago and came to the consensus that they weren't a party and shouldn't be categorised, and someone went ahead and did it anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Background The WikiProject conversation can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Australian politicians categories, round 2. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nom, the term "Ministerialist" signifies support for the Premier and Ministers rather than formal party membership in the pre-party-political era. This gives a bit of an explanation of the term. I think if we want to describe these pre-party alliances we might be better to qualify the term with the premier's name. Since an MP could switch between Ministerialist/Opposition status as the balance of power changed, it's not really a "defining" characteristic of the MP themselves and hence not a basis for a category. Kerry (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A good faith attempt but as previously discussed not an appropriate category. Frickeg (talk) 03:38, 5 April 2015 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Health by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a random collection of categories scattered around the world. Very few of the articles are actually about health. They are articles about hospitals, mostly, and other healthcare organisations. Most of these articles are better classified under 'Health in X' where X is a country, or where there are many articles under local county or other regional subdivision. I don't mean to abolish the subcategories eg Health in Berlin - but that should be a subcategory of health in Germany, or maybe of health in German cities. Rathfelder (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Note: If this discussion results in delete then other similar categories (e.g. Category:Hospitality companies by city - going up the category tree from that category shows just how sparse this form of categorization is) should be brought to CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 22:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I fail to see the problem here. X by city and X by country are both valid categorization schemes, and there's no good reason to favor one over the other. - Eureka Lott 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: most of the city-level categories began as Healthcare in X, but were renamed to Health in X in 2012. - Eureka Lott 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE the nominator previously blanked the category [1], and likely many articles have been decategorized. See the related discussion at #Category:Hospitals by city -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Repopulate If we keep stuff such as Category:Healthcare in Berlin, then the "by city" level of categorization is a perfectly valid organizational level. As you don't want to delete the Berlin category, I see no reason not to have this category, to place it into the CITY-TOPIC category tree. Merge with the Category:Healthcare by city category tree, since the two trees are duplicative. As pointed out by EurekaLott, the two trees are the same, and we can choose to use either "Healthcare" or "Health" as the name. As the last outcome seems to be to move to "Health" then the Healthcare categories can merge into this one. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That rename may not have been the best decision. From looking over the categories, Healthcare seems to better describe their contents than simply Health. It's probably an issue for a separate discussion, though. - Eureka Lott 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and (if not already done) parent the city categories to the country, instead of to a global cities category. It doesn't make sense to create a category for cities that have no relationship with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is much better to have one tree, with parent of city being country. If we keep this it should become Category:Health by populated place due to the difficulty of finding a robust definition of "city" that applies everywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Health and healthcare are two different, though inter-related topics. There are loads of articles about healthcare, but not many about health. But trying to disentangle the two across the whole encyclopaedia would be an immense task, which I am not proposing. My point is that the fact that a hospital or clinic is in a city, as opposed to being in a town or village, is not generally significant. So the top level "Health in Cities" is redundant. But a category of health in Barcelona, as a subcategory of health in Spain, would be useful.Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The "health in cities" tree has been built from a poor basis. Category:Healthcare by city is much better as the vast majority of the material relates to things associated with the healthcare industry (hospitals, places of training, bills on health). There are some overly broad category relationships too (sport in x, death in x, water in x) that I don't think are helpful ways of building the tree – you could easily expand this to include all alimentation (food and drink) articles and all sport and exercise based articles. The only useful inclusion this tree achieves is of epidemics and pollution, a subject on which articles are so rare on a city basis that it is better to deal with them at a higher level (e.g. Category:Health disasters in the United Kingdom). This tree is obviously not very useful when there isn't a single article in existence of the kind Health in London – which would actually form the starting point. SFB 13:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if we change all the "health" sub-cats to "health care" by city, then all we are going to exclude are odd articles like Street dogs in Bangkok. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also trout the nominator for manually emptying the category (for the second time) during a discussion. - Eureka Lott 01:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Argh. The nominator also emptied Category:Healthcare by city. We're going to need several trout. - Eureka Lott 01:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What is trout please?Rathfelder (talk) 18:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Upmerge but really a delete since the category is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Health fields (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Health Fields is an unhelpful category. It only services to obscure the content, which would sit much better in Category:Health. Nobody is ever going to look for "Health Fields" Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Health. Note: this category was created as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_3#Category:Health_specialties. DexDor ^(talk) 18:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE the nominator previously blanked the category [2] and likely decategorized material from the category. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query What did this category contain before it was modified? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the category has been largely restored. It contains, for example, Mental health and Mens health. I don't see what is gained by collecting them together so they are not visible in the main category, health. It took me a long time to find them. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Health per Dexdor -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge insofar the content isn't in the tree of Category:Health already. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:For-profit schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category and its only subcat, Category:For-profit schools in Thailand‎, hold only one article among them, American Pacific International School. I doubt having a for-profit business model is a defining characteristic, at least among private schools in Thailand (most of them are for-profit, if I understand correctly). At the very least this one school shouldn't be singled out, and since it doesn't seem like the category is going to be populated, deletion might be the best option. Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate. Even if it is common for schools in Thailand, it is not common and therefore very much characterstic on a worldwide basis. I agree though that a single school shouldn't be singled out. --PanchoS (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. However, I've taken another look at the American Pacific International article, and the part that says the school operates for-profit is unreferenced, and should probably be removed. (My previous statement of most Thai private schools being for-profit might have also been mistaken. The nature of most schools' operation isn't usually discussed by most sources, though, so there isn't much that we can base such descriptions on.) --Paul_012 (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the Category:For-profit universities and colleges tree is useful because there are unique issues with for profit colleges. I don't have a strong opinion on this one but there's honestly not much here to have an opinion on. If this category is kept though, the college tree should be moved under this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to equivalent schools tree: it should not matter (except to those with a political axe to grind) how a school is organised. In UK, many private schools that used to operate on a "for profit" basis have subsequently be reconstituted as charities. Alternatively they should be categorised as "private schools", because they have a private owner. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the US some schools have been reorganized the other way, going from being for profit to non-profit. Although what you call a school that is a for-profit sub-unit of a non-profit organization might be very tricky.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contrary to what some think, the arrangement for what to do with the profits from a school is not defining. Some for-profit schools are operated by Churches, which really just means they are seperate legal entities and the money made by the school is diverted to the non-profit Church, and used to expand non-school related activities, it is a case of complex fiscal issue, which has little to no impact on the actual operation of the school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: Could you provide an example for that? ― Padenton|✉   05:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have removed the only member article, American Pacific International School, from the category, because the claim was unreferenced. The category is now empty and would need to be repopulated in order to be kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:58, 4 May 2015 (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: Withdrawn by nominator (NAC). DexDor ^(talk) 22:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Judaism in Persia and Iran to Category:Jews and Judaism in Persia and Iran

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge - Parallel categories under Category:Jews and Judaism by country do not have a separate "Category:Judaism by country" DGtal (talk) 06:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Category:Judaism in Iran resp. Category:Jews and Judaism in Iran. Many parallel categories under Category:Jews and Judaism by country indeed have a separate "Category:Judaism by country" child category. However, we are categorizing by contemporary state which is Iran. --PanchoS (talk) 08:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and make absolutely no changes because this is part of very structured separate well-established WP categories for Category:Judaism by country listing 33 countries, including this one, as distinct from Category:Jews by country that also has dozens of sub-categories. In turn Category:Judaism by country PLUS Category:Jews by country serve as the two main sub-categories of Category:Jews and Judaism by country that in turn is a sub-category of the main parent Category:Jews and Judaism. This nomination fails to take into account and does not grasp the separation between the "Jews" article/subject and the "Judaism" article and subject as two separate topics with two separate and unique categories for each. To make this change as the nominator mistakenly wants to would mess up the entire WP category system here and set in motion chaos when this structure has served WP excellently over the last decade. Basically what I am saying is if it ain't broke, don't fix it! Thank you. IZAK (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment I now see I misunderstood the category structure. I now wish to retract my nomination. DGtal (talk) 09:32, 30 March 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Autonomous public organizations of Thailand to Category:Public organizations of Thailand

Nominator's rationale: This is the more common term. Paul_012 (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit irritated by the fact that the nominator himself created the category just some weeks ago and moved around a lot of articles, see also Category:Government agencies of Thailand→Category:State agencies of Thailand, so I've no overview of how the articles were organized before. Neither does the proposed category name convince me either – what is a "public organization"? Furthermore, the listed articles seem to be very mixed. Some of them clearly are government agencies and should be moved there.
  Public funding for schools is far from being extraordinary. An independent yet state-funded school might be a subtype of private school (if run by an NGO) or of a public school (if run by a public body). If things are different in Thailand, then we first of all need clear definitions. --PanchoS (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think your concerns are quite related to the current rename proposal. "Autonomous public organization" is an alternative term for "public organization" (a technical status in Thailand). Apparently I chose the less common name when creating the category over a year ago. That said, The answer to your second question can be found at the State agencies of Thailand article. "Public organization", "government agency", "state enterprise", "independent administrative organization", etc. are all specific terms used to describe different types of Thai state agencies. As for your first question, before the re-categorisation most of the articles were jumbled up in Category:Government agencies of Thailand without regard to their actual agency type. Please also don't let Mahidol Wittayanusorn School's presence in the Public organizations category confuse you. "Public organization", is a distinct administrative status, unrelated to a school's funding. Mahidol Wittayanusorn holds that status because of its unique position as a special policy school. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2015 (UT
• Support Rename/Open to Upmerge The section of State agencies of Thailand that serves as the main article is called "Public organizations" so the category should be renamed per the spirit of WP:C2D. (I share PanchoS' concern though that the current Thai government subcategories are difficult to navigate.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 17:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hospitals by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category and its subcats were emptied out-of-process by User:Rathfelder. I advised him to discuss the change here, but the post wasn't properly formatted and has been removed. His original statement was, "Much more helpful to merge into Category:Hospitals by country." I'm relisting the discussion for technical reasons, and abstain from !voting. Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to know how to format it?Rathfelder (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and restore --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restore we have categories like Category:Hospitals in Australia by city clearly this is a "by city" category, and should be accessible from the city category tree Category:Buildings and structures by country and city has certainly not been deleted. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is much more serious than "hospitals by city" and subcats. There are many other "by city" categories that this user has emptied or blanked. Other "by city" category tree categories and various City-level categories are involved. As well, many other health and medicine categories. Some of the removed items have not been reattached to the parent categories that still exist, breaking categorization links that link "Category:CITYNAME" to the items that exist within the cities. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with both comments above. I see no logic in not categorizing hospitals or any other buildings or institutions by city so clearly "Keep and restore" is the correct response. DGtal (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only a very small number of hospitals were categorised by city. Most of the hospitals in a city category contained only one hospital. I'm afraid I approached these categories from the health side. Many hospitals are not in cities. From the perspective of locating hospital articles it seems unhelpful. The situation is different in respect of countries where there are many hospital articles. But the top level the category Hospitals by city] is pretty useless. It can never hope to be comprehensive. It makes sense to have hospitals by city within a country where there are many articles.Rathfelder (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMALLCAT already deals with what the proper size of a category should be. Why assume that we need to have a category for every city? We don't even have base-level Category:CITYNAME categories for every city. There is no comprehensive set of categories for each and every city, yet we do have individual city categories, such as Category:London (London), even though Category:Bay City, Texas does not exist (Bay City, Texas). Most of the category hierarchy on Wikipedia is sparse and not comprehensive, only having categories for those areas where multiple articles exist to categorize, and not for most single element categories. If it were an ALL-or-NOTHING experience, then we would have no categories at all, since the entire category tree is not an ALL-or-NOTHING proposition. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate Of course, this tree doesn't cater for small towns with a single hospital. But it is very useful to contain per-country-and-city categories as well as single per-city categories of large cities worldwide. --PanchoS (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean that there should not be categories like Hospitals in London. But that should be a subcategory of hospitals in England, or perhaps of Hospitals in English Cities.

• Need further clarification. In the discussion reference has been made to Category:Hospitals in Australia by city and Category:Buildings and structures by country and city but the nominated category is not by country and city, instead it is by city only. How does it relate to each other? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rathfelder blanked and emptied various other categories as well, such as Category:hospitals by country and city, a subcategory of the nomination base category presented here. As well as Category: healthcare by city, and various other city categories like Category:Healthcare in Montreal etc; I've WP:BOLDly reverted the blanking, because blanking is in itself a very bad thing to do, and makes categories show up in maintenance lists for no reason. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE see the related discussion at #Category:Health by city -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The most logical thing to do is to keep and populate Category:hospitals by country and city and part of that is to split the nominated country Category:Hospitals by city .. by country and merge it into Category:hospitals by country and city. It does not make sense to categorize hospitals from totally unrelated cities in one category, while it does make sense to categorize hospitals from cities in the same country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A general by city category is not helpful, becuase of the difficulty as to what is a city, which we resolved by moving to a "populated places" tree. Secondly, a tree that brings cities in different countries together is not useful. I agree it should not have beben emptied out of process, but that is a matter of warning the culprit, not a reason for keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with last two suggestions and apologise for getting carried away and blanking categories. I think most of my blanking has been restored. It's the top level category I see as redundant. "Hospitals in Australian Cities" makes sense as a subcategory of "Hospitals in Australia". It makes sense as a subcategory of "Hospitals". It doesn't make sense as a subcategory of "Hospitals in Cities" unless we are trying to distinguish hospitals in cities from hospitals in towns and villages.Rathfelder (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks a lot! I would actually suggest to close this nomination as 'no consensus', then slowly depopulating Category:Hospitals by city until in the end it has very little content left. At that point of time it can be renominated for deletion. In the mean time, a category Category:Hospitals by city in Italy can be created for the hospitals in Milan, Naples and Rome, while on the other hand a lot of child categories of Category:Hospitals by city can be nominated for upmerge to City and to Hospitals in country, because of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, reorganise into Category:hospitals by country and city per Marcocapelle's argument above. This seems to satisfy all parties' concerns. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Part of the Category:Buildings and structures by city and the (currently depopulated out-of-process) Category:Healthcare by city category structures. - Eureka Lott 01:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities by country is useful. A category which was just a list of cities would not be useful. Firstly because there is no agreed definition of a city, and secondly because there are too many. If it were ever fully populated it would be completely unmanageable. Should we not adopt the same approach to the subcategories?Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the category gets too crowded, suitable subcategories can be split out—and (surprise, surprise), that's exactly what has happened. This isn't a difficult concept. Even if it eventually becomes nothing more than a container category, it's still an important piece of the navigational structure. What's so hard to understand about this? - Eureka Lott 15:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep The current name and scope may well have major drawbacks, but this is not particular to hospitals (although they do at times constitute multi-site institutions). The issues here are more general to the "by city" tree and need to be addressed with a larger nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2015 (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. MER-C 12:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Windsor rep acting dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Completely non-notable, non-defining, made-up concept, part of a WP:COI promotional effort relating to Brice Stratford and just about anything connected to him; please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor rep acting dynasty. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Close according to outcome of the AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the AfD has been closed; the result was delete. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2015 (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.