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) 14:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Army units and formations by period

Nominator's rationale: Few categories or articles, which can be incorporated in subcategories of Category:Military units and formations by era (if not already included). Hugo999 (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we do not in general subdivide military units and formations by what type of military they are connected with, we just group them all together in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2011 (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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 7#Category:Winners of beauty pageants in the Philippines. — ξ^xplicit 00:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Winners of beauty pageants in the Philippines to Category:Filipino beauty pageant winners

Nominator's rationale: I get why User:Timrollpickering closed this nomination the way he did, and also why he left the door open to immediate renomination. The format here is inconsistent with Category:Beauty pageant winners by nationality's subcategories, and also with Category:Filipino women. Some users questioned whether it meant winners in the Philippines or winners from the Philippines; I think the category is pretty clearly the latter, since Miss Universe winners are in these categories, where the contest takes place outside of their home countries.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Winners of beauty pegenats of the Phillipines. We considered in the discussion what we actually wanted the inclusion criteria for this to be. These are supposed to reflect that the pegeants have affiliaiton with a specific county, not that the winner of the pageant is affiliated with the country. This should be a sister cat to Category:Alumniu by university or college in the Philippines. However beauty pegents are less connected to a specific loaction than are colleges, so we have to allow for the theoretical Miss X pageant held in place Y because of some factor or other but consisting of contestants from Y. If someone calls their pagent "Miss Vietnam" and holds it in Louisiana because its contestants are Vietnamese-Americans living there than it is a peagent of the United States. However if the constestants are Vietnamese women who have traveled to the US because they decided to mix a tour with the beauty pegeant and the organizers are Vietnam residents than it would be "of Vietnam".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2011 (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 per past precedents (i.e. WP:CSD#G4) and the increasingly cold weather we're experiencing around here. Bencherlite^Talk 22:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dead at the age of 27 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category was established following the death of Amy Winehouse to lump together artists who died at age 27. There is nothing to establish the notability of this categorization. Lots of people die at 27. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Club 27, while slightly iffy, exits. This category is, however, pointless. Talk:Amy Winehouse contains a discussion which unanimously opposes the category. U-Mos (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Bad category name and not worthy of a category in our esteemed encyclopaedia... It is over-categorisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note categories on this subject have been deleted [1] [2] twice in the past. U-Mos (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note I forgot about the phenomenon of musician's dying at 27 and the questionably notable "club" some have created to describe them. It doesn't take away from the overcategorization problem noted above, however. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The Club 27 phenomenon can already take care of that. If there had to be a category for people dying at age 27, then there would have to be a category for every age available to keep up consistency, which is something I don't think I'd necessarily care about. Also, the category name is rather poorly phrased and would more ideally be phrased as Category:People who died at age 27, not that that alternate name matters, of course, which it doesn't. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 20:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is variation on a theme that has been deleted before. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Strong) keep: although no problem with renaming it to members of club 27: I really don't understand why people have such an objection on giving pure facts. As imho this project-page is only to gives one opinion and rationale and not a place for discussion between people please also see my remark on the talk page of the catafory. edites Tonkie (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Past consensus has found that despite the 'Club 27' moniker, actually categorizing people by the age they died is over-categorization. I fall to see why another musician dying at this age changes this. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - completely arbitrary category. It's worth noting that there's clear prior consensus on this one - such a category has been previously deleted twice in 2007 and 2010. Robofish (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm usually not into deleting, but 27 is not relevant enough to create a whole category for it. There is an article about it, and that's just fine. I mean, everyone dies at some age, and there is inevitable that a bunch of famous people have died at the same age at other points too. --Henriettapussycat (talk) 20:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Do we honestly need categories like "Dead at the age of 1" to "Dead to the age of 122"? --190.157.154.245 (talk) 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Parasitism to Category:Parasitology

Nominator's rationale: If there is supposed to be a distinction between these two, it is not clear to me; both contain the same kind of topics. No strong opinion on the direction of the merge. (This was originally proposed by User:Snek01 as a move request.) Ucucha 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• VERY strong oppose. Parasitism is a process whereas parasitology is the study of parasitism and parasites. The contents needs sorting (but hey what's new...) and the hierarchy is incorrect. Category:Parasitology should be the parent of Category:Parasites and Category:Parasitism rather than the reverse, as it is at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course they're different concepts, but that does not imply that they are useful as separate categories. Ucucha 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is because of the fact that they are different concepts means they should have separate categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Make Category:Parasitology parent of Category:Parasites and Category:Parasitism per Alan LieftingCurb Chain (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is sure thing. If kept, then hierarchy is like that as Curb Chain said. Done. --Snek01 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. They are completely duplicite. The most of articles categorized now in Category:Parasitology and Category:Parasitism are possible to categorize in both categories. And they are de facto categorized in both, that is against overcategorization. There is no need two categories to very few articles that are so highly overlapping. You can do huge category tree like this.

Category:Parasitology
 +Category:Parasitism - delete
   ++Category:Parasites
 +Parasitology literature
 +Parasitic diseases
 +Parasitologists
 +Parasitology research - also redundant, delete
 +Veterinary parasitology

If you will kept the category, then you will categorize all species of parasites into category:Parasites. You will categorize all articles related to parasitism into Category:Parasitism. Then they would remain very few articles "Archaeoparasitology", "Paleoparasitology", "Quantitative parasitology", "Structural parasitology" and "Veterinary parasitology".

There is also no need to keep Category:Parasitology as an container category (with maximally 10 articles) in it with the rest of articles in subCategory:parasitism. Categorization should be simple, logical, unambiguous, reader friendly, not overcategorized. --Snek01 (talk) 13:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you sentiment in your last sentence and with the deletion of the parasitology research category (and with the changes that you made to the category hierarchy). But the parasitism category is of use since it is a clearly defined topic and has sub- and super-categories as well as being populated with articles - albeit a small number. Note that I have removed the container category template form Category:Parasites since there are at least three article that belong in it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and prune. They have different parents, Symbiosis & Predation / Pathology & Ecology. The contents just need tidying up. Happy to help with that once that outcome is decided. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename/merge to "industry" without prejudice to a tree-wide nomination to decide on the singular/plural issue. There's a clear consensus to merge the India categories and to have the tree at a consistent form but a split down the middle on which way to go. For now it's best to follow the parent category but a further nomination would allow the other categories to be considered as well. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming various subcategories of Category:Industry by country

Category:Industries in Israel to Category:Industry in Israel

Category:Industries in Moldova to Category:Industry in Moldova

Category:Industries in Ukraine to Category:Industry in Ukraine

Category:Industries in the United States to Category:Industry in the United States

Category:Industry of Austria to Category:Industry in Austria

Category:Industry of China to Category:Industry in China

Category:Industry of Iran to Category:Industry in Iran

Category:Industry of Italy to Category:Industry in Italy

Category:Industry of Lesotho to Category:Industry in Lesotho

Category:Industry of Poland to Category:Industry in Poland

Category:Industry of Romania to Category:Industry in Romania

Category:Industry of Taiwan to Category:Industry in Taiwan

Propose merging:

Category:Industries in India to :Category:Industry in India

Nominator's rationale: Most of the 30 country subcategories of Category:Industry by country are in the format Category:Industry in Canada but 4 have “Industries” not “Industry” and 8 have “of” not “in”; the proposed changes will bring uniformity. Four articles could also be renamed (Bulgaria, Iran, Pakistan, Romania). Hugo999 (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The categories certainly need to be renamed in a consistent manner but I am not sure whether it should be the plural "Industries" or the singular "Industry". Convention dictates that we should use the plural form. I support the merging of the two categories relating to India into one. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in the form "Industries in [Country]" even though I think "industry" can sometimes be used to refer to the plural meaning. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to the form 'Industry in' to match the parent category name of Category:Industry by country (not 'Industries') and to match the preponderance of the sibling subcats. Hmains (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Rename to either “Industries” or “Industry:” by country; how about “Industies” and merging Category:Industry by country into Category:Industries by country also? “Industry” here seems to refer to manufacturing industries, not say the “Advertising Industry”.Hugo999 (talk) 02:56, 24 July 2011 (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.