Talk:Lists of hospitals in Oceania

combine some sub-lists back?

Hey I like this list-article and feel it makes a good contribution. But I am a bit questioning whether split-out of List of hospitals in Tuvalu and other sublists is necessary or helpful. There's just one hospital listed there. User:G. Moore, could "List of hospitals in Tuvalu" be redirected back to this main list-article, or better to a specific {{anchor}} within, e.g. to List of hospitals in Oceania#Tuvalu, if an anchor has been set there. If it ever grew in numbers so much that it needed to be split out, then that would be done by replacing the redirect. Perhaps you felt it necessary to split it out so that it would properly populate Category:Hospitals in Tuvalu? That's not necessary; the right way to do that would be to put that category in the existing separate article about the one hospital (which has been done). If, say, a given hospital seems not to require a separate article and its coverage would just be an item in a list-article, then a redirect for the hospital to that entry could be created, and the category could be added ON THE REDIRECT. That works fine, it shows the existence of a place in the given category, just displayed in italics. Could you comment please? --Doncram (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, User:G. Moore, I wonder if u think all hospitals, past and present, automatically list-item-notable, i.e. worth listing here. I am not so sure. Lists can be AFD'd or otherwise criticized/attacked, and developed stuff can get lost, if not different than a directory (wp:NOTDIR). --Doncram (talk) 04:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram:, Excellent idea for using anchors and redirects for countries with small number of hospitals. I came to the same conclusion when doing List of hospitals in the United States. I will work on the redirects and anchors. The navigation templates will work with the redirects for countries with small numbers of hospitals. As for distinguishing the List of hospitals in Country from just a simple directory, I think the country lists should contain some information about the history of hospitals, mentions of the most notable ones, historically notable hospitals, and other descriptions. I believe it does serve a purpose to have all current hospitals in the list. Not every hospital will be notable and so they all would not have links. We have a definition of notable in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability. G. Moore 12:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, good, i'm glad you understand me, and thank you G. Moore for pointing me to that WikiProject Hospitals "Tutorial" page. It is a local WikiProject page, equivalent to just a local consensus or an essay, say; it is not an official guideline. It seems okay and clear enough on "notability", meaning notability for having an individual article, but doesn't discuss what I call "list-item-notability". That is something that editors of a list-article can decide, by consensus, and can be a lower standard. Many list-articles are restricted to just items having articles, but I think for many lists that having items for which some info is provided, supported by sources, and establishing some level of importance, without articles, is okay and good. I must say I really don't like just bare names, or just names plus addresses. I see you are attaching the same reference to multiple items in some of the hospital list-articles you've worked in, but if that is just a directory itself and doesn't provide substantial content about each item, then, well, I don't like it. I see that is exactly what someone (you, probably?) have done in List of hospitals in Indonesia for example. An encyclopedic list cannot just be a directory of just names, or just names and locations; actual real directories out in the world supported by commercial/other entities will convey more, being more usefully by helpfully providing phone numbers and other stuff, and will be kept more current and and simply are better all around. And do not require future maintenance, and sturm and drang of future AFDs and so on because the stuff is in fact obviously unsuitable in view of most editors. Adds no value-> should be deleted. The "Tutorial" doesn't actually advocate or endorse building a directory of all the hospitals in the world; it anticipates rather that local hospital topics might be suitably redirected to a city/town article's section on emergency services. I think that list-items need to have _some_ importance/sources, which might be simply operationalized by being covered in some particular source of higher quality than a directory. And I guess I think further that their importance should be specifically asserted/supported/communicated in each item. In these lists, broadly, we don't have that yet; this seems invalid to me and subject to AFD and deletion possibly, or subject to harsh editing stripping these down.

(about some AFD-deleted articles, comment moved to Talk:List of hospitals and expanded) --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I am actually an "inclusionist" and a list-builder, and would far rather help out positively, doing some of the work, than participate negatively in the AFD vein. Could we/you stop with copying directory stuff into the Wikipedia for a while, say for duration of a joint editing campaign, and turn to developing better examples? Not every item needs to be developed out very fully, but it should be made clear that all or almost all can be developed out whenever someone chooses. In List of hospitals in Indonesia, I am pretty sure that cannot be done, and I'd rather for your sake that you didn't spend time doing stuff that's gonna get ripped out, and where there will be contention and maybe ANI proceedings and maybe topic bans, eventually. I know that editors who construct a lot of marginal stuff that cannot actually be defended, are unhappy when the deletionists get around to attacking, which they surely will. I myself develop fairly marginal stuff, like I am doing now with National Registry of Historic Hotels of America, but I am somewhat prepared and gearing up to defend its listing of every such hotel against those who are gonna say it is promotional and just a directory of non-notable non-encyclopedic stuff. I mainly am doing that by developing many new individual articles and digging out some independent sources in some/many cases. You currently cannot defend much of what you are doing, I think; you are sketching out stuff too fast; "all" is too many; List of hospitals cites Cybermetrics Lab that there are over 164,500 hospitals worldwide in 2015; you don't want to spend your life dragged down in this area. This is sort of a question and an offer although also I guess i mean to imply a sort of threat, that i could choose to be involved in the negative side instead, i.e. rounding up different views than yours, because I do not agree that every hospital that exists can be listed. Actually, technically, you no longer have "consensus" on this list-article and related ones for them to stay as they are now. I hope you don't mind my mixed message. Thanks, --Doncram (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

move request

I want to move "Lists of hospitals in Oceania" to "List of hospitals in Oceania". It is the latter, and does happen to include links to some split-out sublists, which is fine under that name. Especially as some too-ambitious sublists of one or a few get merged back, this will include a number of individual hospitals, which is fine under the latter name. I could make a formal move request but if there's no objection i will just boldly move it (assuming i can). --Doncram (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doncram:I see no problem with this. The template for hospitals in oceania would work better with this move, also. I am thinking that the list should also have separate sections for large countries and small countries. There should also be more on history of hospitals in Oceania. Talk to G Moore 11:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)