Category:Birds of the Palestinian territories[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 all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 16:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge That one article can be in 31 locational categories shows we have engaged in over-categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Boita are best categorised on a wider basis than country, here by subcontinent. The problem is with agreeing where the subcontinent ends. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've removed Egypt from the nom as that probably should be upmerged to Africa (or the articles moved individually to the appropriate parent(s)) (even though, for some reason, that category isn't currently under Category:Birds of Africa). We probably should also restrict Category:Birds of the Middle East to exclude Egypt - that way a future merge up to Category:Birds of Asia would be easier. DexDor(talk) 06:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - I agree with the above. Neutralitytalk 01:09, 23 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:rename. MER-C 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it should be split to Romani, since not all the contents are Romani. Indeed in fiction, "gypsy" is not the same as "Gypsy", since there are many fictional gypsies that have nothing to do with the Romani, as in fiction "gypsy" is used to mean a wandering people, without relation to Romani at all. Indeed in Science Fiction and Fantasy, there are many non-human people labelled as "gypsies" as their only racial/ethnic identifier. Being non-human they cannot ever be Romani. Even in real life, there are many groups of wandering people unrelated to the Romani called "gypsy". We do not all live in Europe, the identification of "Gypsy" with "Romani" is only strong in Europe, outside of it, it is also associated with general wanderers. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Romani is the accepted term. In the United States the two terms are accepted as the same. Much of this fiction serves to support various schemes of discrimination against Romani, and should be analized and exposed as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A study of the contents will show that the people involved are identified as Romani in the literature in question. Maybe not by name, but based on the word usage of the time, that is who is meant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as consistent with parent categories. --Inyouchuu shoku (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have friends who self-identify as inuit, romani, or navajo descent, and they all take offense to cultural stereotypes and reject to being "labeled" by others. --Omanyd (talk) 19:15, 2 June 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.
Comment - could we merge them the other way? The UK seems a little redundant to me. SF's members of the Irish parliaments are not referred to as MPs but as TDs and MLAs. Gob Lofa (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge. We may need a "see also" capnote for MLAs and TDs, if only to avoid miscategorisation. I assume that Sinn Fein never had seats on the old NI Parliament. There were MPs before 1922 see List of Sinn Féin MPs, but they can probably go in the same category, unless we split before and after 1922. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 19 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 while finding the category emptied already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not useful with just one item The Bannertalk 11:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably to Beauty Pageants, or add more categoiries to the one article. The present suggestion would leave the article inadequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 18 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.
Nominator's rationale: A category for just one item is not useful The Bannertalk 11:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge probably to Beauty Pageants, or add more categoiries to the one article. The present suggestion would leave the article inadequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 18 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.
Oppose: Due to the nature of the LOFAR telescope deployment, most stations are located close to or on the grounds of existing observatories. That's because the requirements for construction, maintenance, connectivity and low radio interference are significantly lower close to an existing radio astronomy facility. The number of LOFAR stations will grow, with 3-4 planned for 2015 alone. Most of them will be again placed close to the site of an existing radio telescope. Given that LOFAR is currently (by far) the most advanced instrument of it's type, hence a location being a LOFAR station is certainly of importance, especially to the astronomers using the telescope. The location of a station is of importance due to several factors related to radio interferometry, such as distance from the core of the system. A common category will also make navigation between article for LOFAR stations be more convenient for reader. Deepdraft(talk) 06:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- LOFAR is an acronym of Low Frequency Array, a type of radio telescope, perhaps to Low Frequency Array telescopes. I have not read far enough to see how far they operate together. In some branches of astronomy, telescopes in differnet places are used simultaneously to achieve better results than any could alone. If so, there is a coherence greater than in the case of the membership categories for associations of universities, which we are regularly deleting. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(If the category is kept) then I don't think "LOFAR" needs expanding; the article is at LOFAR and we have categories using similar (albeit better known) acronyms. In an article such as Nançay radio telescope the reference to LOFAR is just in a "includes several other" list - it doesn't appear to be a defining characteristic of the facility. DexDor(talk) 22:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that LOFAR stations might not be the best name for the category, as the category can be used for more LOFAR related facilities, not only stations. I am not sure about going as far as giving it a generic name, such as Low Frequency Array telescopes. Deepdraft(talk) 08:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, there aren't any articles (except for the epynomous article) about LOFAR. Alternative rename proposals just seem to ignore this fact. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:24, 28 June 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. – FayenaticLondon 09:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear name, no parents, contains just one page (a draft). DexDor(talk) 05:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is being used to categorise a rather bad article sitting in a user's sandbox. That article is also categoirised "Vision": it may be that the organisation described has a vision, but it should not be so categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:18, 18 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.
