< November 30	December 2 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Azerbaijani feminists to Category:Azerbaijani women's rights activists

Nominator's rationale: It would be more accurate to refer to them as women's rights activists, as feminism is a fairly contemporary term in Azerbaijan, and some people in this category were born as early as the 1870s. Parishan 22:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless entire scheme of Category:Feminists by nationality is considered for merging with categories of Category:Women's rights activists by nationality, as many other constituent subcategories in "feminists" contain women's rights activists that were active prior to the coining of the term "feminist". Perhaps proposed category name should just be created and placed in Category:Women's rights activists by nationality and then individual Azerbaijani articles sorted appropriately. If the category for "feminists" remains empty for 4 days, then it may be speedily deleted. Snocrates 00:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support general renaming principle, though probably not just this one nomination on its own. Feminism is an idea, and activism is an action; I can be a feminist without being a women's rights activist. I'd like to see all those renamed, but it needs a nomination of something more than an outlier like this category (say, the US equivalent).--Mike Selinker 06:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The term "feminism" was used in English as early as the 1890s and "feminism" in the 1850s. However, it is not anachronistic to describe people working for women's rights as feminists. We're using this encyclopedia today, not in 1870, and feminism is a commonly understood term that means working for women's rights. On a meta level, I don't like the way this discussion has veered so quickly to the idea that we should eliminate "feminism" as a category in the case of Category:Feminists_by_nationality. Is that what you're suggesting, Mike? This sort of naming schema change is a deeply political issue that I think you should realize is a hot button. And, think for a minute about why listing feminists by nationality might be a useful thing, and who it would be useful to. If you separate this list, and then by extension also Category:Feminists then this will contribute further to the difficulties women and feminists have in finding each other in history. --Lizzard 06:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize it's a hot button, and I think you are reading more into my suggestion than I mean. As I said, I think "women's rights activists" is more accurate and usefully exclusive. I'm not arguing for separating it out; I'm arguing for renaming every feminist category as a women's rights category, because I think it's better to characterize by action than by belief. I believe gender equality is almost entirely an issue of women's rights, as almost every issue has involved either securing women's personal rights (right to abortion, protection from domestic violence) or raising women up to the level of men (equal compensation, right to vote). Feminism is a fuzzy term; women's rights activism is absolutely clear.--Mike Selinker 08:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not all of the women in these lists fought/are fighting for the same rights. I think that now you are imposing a modern definition of feminism onto the category. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft, often heralded as a pioneering feminist, did not precisely believe in gender equality. Does that make her ineligible for a "women's rights" category as you have defined it? Nor did she argue for any of the issues you list here. Feminism is indeed a fuzzy term because there are many different kinds of feminism. Have you read feminism? Making the category too narrow doesn't really help, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've read it. I didn't say "equality," I said "rights." Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. That's activism for women's rights, in my opinion. Anyway, this nomination isn't going to pass, and it shouldn't because it's based on an outlier category. Let's move on to something else. --Mike Selinker 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose These women did not work just for women's rights. They were feminists because they pursued gender equality. Furthermore, feminism as a concept existed well before any of these women were born (see Vindication_of_the_Rights_of_Women, by Mary Wollstonecraft, who died before the first of the women listed was born). Unless we rename every woman referred to as a feminist as a "woman's rights activist," this is not a logical change.--Thalia42 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Thalia42 and Geeklizzard. Rebecca 07:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the terms (feminists and women's rights activists) are not synonymous (though there is overlap), as Thalia and Mike Selinker point out. They are distinct categories and one should not be renamed to the other or merged into the other. --MPerel 07:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Lizzard. A person can be feminist and do things other that women's rights activism. Renaming this (and the other categories suggested) would make this connection disappear. Activism is a tricky word too: not everyone sees feminist theorists as activists but the contribution from theorists underlies activism. The two words are interlocked. Herstorii 12:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), which asks the question, "What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" From this viewpoint, I believe that feminist would be the more commonly used and generally understood term. I also agree with Herstorii that feminism as a set of theories and beliefs works as the foundation for activism, and that while linked, they should not be used interchangeably. Perhaps women's rights activists can be seen as a subset of feminists, but I don't think you can swap one term for another without losing some nuance of meaning. --Kyoko 14:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For the average reader, feminist is the most accessible term and, happily in this case, scholarship coincides with the common term. Many scholars refer to Mary Wollstonecraft as a feminist, for example {see A Vindication of the Rights of Woman#Feminism). One of the most recent and important books on her is titled Mary Wollstonecraft and the Feminist Imagination. This admittedly anachronistic but useful usage of the term is extended to women such as Mary Astell (biography titled: The Celebrated Mary Astell: An Early English Feminist), Mary Hays, and Olympe de Gouge. However, what these women did hardly falls under the term "activism" as it is generally understood. These women, plus many more from the nineteenth century, are frequently called feminists by scholars working the field. If this is the most natural search term and scholars use this term, Wikipedia should most definitely use it. Awadewit | talk 17:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As others explained above, "feminist" does seem to be the most apt term to use here. --krimpet⟲ 20:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kyoko & Thalia42, above - Alison ^❤ 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose regardless of whether this is a popular trend in Azerbaijan today, it would be wrong to state that Feminism as such would be alien to Azerbaijan society as a whole. --Soman 15:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose because feminism is a blanket term, not a movement.Bakaman 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename main categories and all subcategories (not just those listed here) to "without infoboxes," per Otto. This is a template-changing job, so since the articles take a long time to transfer, I'm closing it and fixing the templates myself. I'll leave aside whether the artist one should be deleted, though, as the "need" for a box is now not claimed in the category title.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Articles needing an infobox to Category:Articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Articles that need an artist infobox to Category:Artist articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Comics articles needing character boxes to Category:Comics character articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Former country articles requiring an infobox to Category:Former country articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Hurricane articles without an infobox to Category:Hurricane articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Needs music genre infobox to Category:Music genre articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Musical Theatre articles requiring an infobox to Category:Musical theatre articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Novel needs Book infobox to Category:Novel articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Schools articles needing infoboxes to Category:School articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Ship articles without an infobox to Category:Ship articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Articles that need a television infobox to Category:Television articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Television stations that need an infobox to Category:Television station articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing infoboxes to Category:U.S. road articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:United States Supreme Court cases without an infobox to Category:United States Supreme Court case articles needing infoboxes

Propose renaming Category:Articles that need a venue infobox to Category:Venue articles needing infoboxes

Nominator's rationale: The dominant pattern in the main category is "(X) articles needing infoboxes," and since sometimes you need more than one infobox, plural seems better than singular. I'm also thinking the proprietary nature of ones like the WikiProject Schools articles might scare some editors away from adding boxes to these articles, so I'm for making them generic. (Some of these are empty, but they should not be deleted, as templates feed into them when articles arise without the proper boxes.)—Mike Selinker 20:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to standardize categories, but change Category:U.S. Roads project articles needing infoboxes to Category:U.S. road articles needing infoboxes. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--Mike Selinker 06:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Delete Category:Articles that need an artist infobox as generally artists articles are better using no infobox or a painting infobox; none of the examples I looked at would be improved by an artist infobox. Strong Rename all the others per nom, but with "lacking" instead of "needing"; often these boxes are not desirable at all, and the question should not be pre-judged by an official-looking tag. I would be sympathetic to deleting others if a case is made. Johnbod 15:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All - per nom :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Foo articles without infoboxes. If "needing" is a pre-judgment call, so is "lacking." "Without" simply notes that there is no infobox with no judgment of any kind as to whether one is needed or desirable. No opinion on John's suggested deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with the alternative name. Johnbod (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, that sounds fine. There are other such categories, which I think we just can agree will be renamed if this nomination passes. I'll put all the appropriate ones into the Working page and fix the templates.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Orations to Category:Speeches

Nominator's rationale: The categories, and even articles relating to them, do not effectively distinguish them. I really just want to discuss this, as that's what this page is actually titled. Why have two categories when one will do? (Also, "Orations" is a subcat of "speeches.") —ScouterSig 18:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, and also rename Category:Orations by type to speeches; this can be hugely added to from the stuff in the main Speeches cat. These all need someone to spend an hour tidying and removing duplicate cats. Johnbod 19:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 09:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 09:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Club Penguin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This was incorrectly listed at WP:MFD and an earlier attempt to move the discussion here failed and, indeed, caused some confusion (see today's talk page) (as CfD, unlike MfD, doesn't work by having transcluded sub-pages). Relisting here by Bencherlite^Talk. Original deletion reason given was this:

This category only has one article in it. The other ones are a talk and user page that isn't necessary. Therefore, this category has no point and should be deleted. Tavix 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say delete as an unnecessary eponymous category and one that is small and unlikely to grow; the article is already adequately categorised. Bencherlite^Talk 18:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' per nom; open to recreation if a need can later be demonstrated. Johnbod 19:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy close. The discussion is taking place at this location and we don't need a new thread here. Bencherlite^Talk 16:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what is wrong with Category:Former Students of Easington Community Science College.Thanks.--Sunderland06 13:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Internazionale to Category:F.C. Internazionale Milano

Propose renaming Category:Inter Milan managers to Category:F.C. Internazionale Milano managers

Propose renaming Category:Internazionale players to Category:F.C. Internazionale Milano players

Nominator's rationale: To match the category's main article. I am also nominating the subcategories contained within this category to follow the same pattern. – PeeJay 13:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. – PeeJay 13:37, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I agree, these categories should be renamed. CapPixel 13:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per nominator. The categories should match the main article's name. --Carioca 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all → Internazionale is simply international in Italian. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge per Bencherlite. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hungarian-American journalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category is virtually empty after being around for like six weeks. It also seems a peculiar choice to be the only "ethnic American" journalist category. (It might also be an odd choice to be the sole subcategory of Category:Hungarian-Americans. See List of Hungarian Americans to see what occupation sections are actually large.)--T. Anthony 10:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Double upmerge to Category:Hungarian-Americans and Category:American journalists per this discussion not to sub-cat American journalists by ethnicity. A non-notable intersection of occupation and national mix. Bencherlite^Talk 20:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the one name in this to those categories.--T. Anthony 05:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I happen to agree that this particular category doesn't merit keeping, I have to point out that it shouldn't have been emptied prior to closing of the CFD. That's contrary to due process. Could you please put it back for now, T. Anthony? Cgingold 03:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I forgot that, sorry. I added two others, but maybe that's also inappropriate.--T. Anthony 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem there, T. Anthony -- we're allowed to use the categories as we normally would while they're being discussed. Cgingold 19:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OCAT intersection by ethnicity & occupation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Virginia Tech (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete single-article category for User B's personal WikiProject. Doczilla 08:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgender and transsexual criminals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category; WP:GRS says "Categories should not be based on sexuality unless the sexuality has a specific relation to the topic," and transsexuality doesn't have any relation to criminality. The concept of transsexual criminals has no cultural significance. Delete. SparsityProblem 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Sting_au Talk 11:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - overcategorization by irrelevant intersection of gender. Note that LGBT murderers is offered as an example of the guideline. Otto4711 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per WP:CATGRS#Gender: "Categories should not be gendered unless the gender has a specific relation to the topic". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was category for discussion nee deletion discussion result that was determined by the closing admin to have a lack of consensus (what's with the wordiness of the categories these days folks? Is there some contest to find the longest category name?). Kbdank71 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English footballers who played for other national teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:English expatriate footballers, convention of Category:Expatriate footballers by nationality. How detailed do we want this to be? -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is dangerously simplistic to say that such players are English. It might even be considered an accusation of cheating (playing for a national side without due qualification) or a libel to state that they are English, as if nationality were a cut and dried issue with only one possible answer. For many of us, it is not. If what is meant is English-born, then the category heading must state that; if what is meant is Players of dual nationality, where one of those nationalities is English then try to find a concise, but accurate, way of saying that. Kevin McE 09:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again, I do not believe that a merge is appropriate, and would propose deletion, unless a suitable renaming can be agreed. Merger is inappropriate, because being English and playing club football in another country is quite different from being, in some way, English and yet representing another national side. Kevin McE 14:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the unnominated Irish sub-cat should certainly be kept, and this has most of the players. I can't really understand Kevin McE's concerns. Johnbod 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mention yourself, below, the concern that such a list cannot really be restricted to only having such a category for English born.

If a player plays for Ireland, or New Zealand, or St Kitts and Nevis, then as far as FIFA and the passport authorities are concerned, that is his nationality. What then, it that case, does it mean to describe them as English? It is making a statement about a player's nationality that is contrary to his own self description. The title does not acknowledge that it may be a case of dual nationality: it simply says that they are English, as if that were uniquely and incontrovertibly the nationality of the men concerned. At best, it is confusing nationality with place of birth. Should Terry Butcher be described as a Singaporean footballer who played for England? I don't think that would be how he thinks of himself, and it would be news to both FIFA and the Singaporean Passport office. Kevin McE 13:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The world is full of people who have dual nationalities, or change nationality. The normal rules for "English people" categories apply. We know what happens with many of the players for Ireland who make up the majority of people here. If any individual cases cause problems, they should be removed; obviously Terry Butcher would not be in this category. Your concerns just seem very far-fetched to me - can you cite a problematic example from among thoose in the category? Johnbod 14:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you define what these "normal rules for English people" are? I accept that some people are incontrovertibly English, but I know no formal "rule for English-ness", and the fact that these individuals played for another country is proof that they do not consider themselves to be suitably described as to their nationality by the one word "English". Kevin McE 16:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if the purpose of this is as I think it is, would a rename to Category:English-born footballers who played for other national teams be an acceptable move? FWIW, there are quite a few from my part of the world that would qualify (e.g., Steve Wooddin). Grutness...wha? 23:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why restrict it to them , although I'm sure they are the majority. What about those born in (gulp) Scotland, let alone further afield, to English parents, who grew up in England etc? Johnbod 03:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all - in fact, it would be the next logical step. I see no reason why there aren't a whole series of categories for X-born footballers who played for Y. Let's face it, no article would be in more than one category, so it's hardly going to clutter the pages, and it provides an interesting and significant subcategory for any category of a nation's international players. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename to Category:Footballers born in England who played for other national teams per Grutness, but avoiding "English-born" to avoid implications of nationality that may not be accurate. This should not be merged with the expatriate footballers category because the point is that they represented another country (sometimes having also represented England) despite being born in England (e.g. George Moorhouse USA, Ken Armstrong England + New Zealand, Muzzy Izzet Turkey, Jack Reynolds (1869-1917) England + Ireland, etc), not that they played some club football overseas like Michael Owen or Peter Beardsley. It is being used in line with the other sub-categories of its parent category, Category:Football (soccer) internationals with dual nationality (although the parent could perhaps do with a rename). Bencherlite^Talk 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Category should be kept as it is, separate from Expatriate category. This category features English players who represented other national teams which is very different from just playing in a non-English League. In addition some of these players never actually played in a foreign league and spent the majority of their lives in England. Most would be considered dual nationals. I think the name is fine and see no reason to change it. Djln--Djln (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note Terry Butcher is possibly the only English player born in Singapore whereas there are dozens of English players who played for other national teams. Secondly there is no such thing as an English passport so any reference to this is pointless. The fact these players chose to play for another national team does not necessarily make them less English. Andy O’Brien, Eamon O’Keefe, Jack Reynolds and Ken Armstrong even played for England at some level and Stan Mortensen is an interesting unusual case. Djln —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Djln asserts that these players are English, but the fact that they have played for another nation means that they do not consider that to be a satisfactory description of their nationality. I cannot see how an encyclopaedia, which reports facts rather than imposing them, can take upon itself the right to describe an individual's nationality other than as he or she would. I myself was born in England, have lived most of my life here, and intend to do so for the rest of my life, but I would not consider the simple word "English" to describe my nationality: my passport states otherwise! I would not thank you for saying to me "You are English", as though that were the only nationality I could have, and the fact that these people chose to play for another national team, possibly against England, suggests that they would feel likewise. I support Grutness' proposal of removal to Category:English-born footballers who played for other national teams. Kevin McE (talk) 11:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep category as is: The fact that an Englishman chooses to play for another country does not mean he looses his Englishness. These players saw their best chance of playing international football was to opt to play for another country and they took it. To change the title to English-born is to suggest that they are somehow less English because they played for another country. This is borderline racist. The title of the category is accurate and should not be changed or merged. Is Kevin McE volunteering to tell Vinnie Jones he’s not English ? Djln —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object strenuously to the accusation of racism, and expect a retraction. I have made no comments about the "quality" of anybody's Englishness. If a player wishes to consider himself English, because of where he was born, despite having played for another country, that is his prerogative. To allow a person to describe themselves other than as English, despite his having been born in the country, is a basic acknowledgement of his rights. The issue is not whether someone should be considered "less English" if their parents were born elsewhere (an opinion I have not raised in this discussion, and one with which I would have no sympathy), but whether they are more complex in their nationality than simply "English". "English-born" is a very commonly used ophrase that serves as a shorthand for "born within the borders of England"; to read into that phrase any sense of "Only English by accident of birth and genetically suspect" is pure eisogesis. The only incontrovertible fact that can be stated of a person by virtue of his having been born in England is that he is "English-born": an encyclopaedia deals only on incontrovertible facts. Quite apart from this, many of the articles linked describe players as being of a nationality other than English. As regards your final point, Vinnie Jones must have told the FAW that an accurate description of his nationality could not be made in the one word "English". Kevin McE (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may not have intended to be racist, but the term English-born could be described as such. Of course individual articles indicate the players consider themselves another nationality. That is whole point of the category - English players who have dual nationality

Djln--Djln (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard the term "English-born" to be held as dubious in its propriety or suspect in terms of racist overtones: it is widely used in unquestioned innocence. You persist in wanting to apply the description "English" to those who might not wish to consider themselves such: an encyclopaedia had no right to apply a contentious description to a person. It might be your opinion that any person born in England should thereby be considered English, but it might not be their desire to be so described. Given the lack of any legal status of Englishness, the matter cannot be confirmed, and therefore remains a matter of perception. I repeat: the only description that can incontrovertibly be made of somebody based on their being born in England is "English-born". Kevin McE (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Controversial movies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, please see many previous discussions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 01:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per multiple precedents to avoid "controversial" in category names, including one that ProveIt's list omits now includes from last month. Bencherlite^Talk 01:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia:Categorization#Guidelines seems to indicate this is discouraged. As I recall from experience lists and categories are to avoid the word "controversial." I think this would be worse in categories than lists as lists can at least source that something caused a notable controversy.--T. Anthony 07:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too subjective. SparsityProblem 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per precedents regarding subjective "controversial" categories. Doczilla 08:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No Salo? No Passion? No Dumbo (with it's racial undertones)? Pretty much every movie in controversial to someone/group in someway. Complete OR/POV nightmare. Lugnuts 10:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per above. smb 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete entirely too subjective and vague - one could make a case for any movie to belong in such a category. Maralia 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per categorization guidelines. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 02:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Human rights bodies to Category:Human rights organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge, We have both category trees, and "Human rights bodies" is older & longer established, but "X organizations" is more common amongst other organizations and (to my eye) a little bit more understandable & neutral. (Bodies suggesting, for instance, "deliberative bodies" or, even, confusingly, "human bodies". Lquilter 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Sting_au Talk 11:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; no compelling reason for the 'bodies' category to exist. Maralia 18:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've just started evaluating this, but I want to hold up a checkered flag before the train leaves the station. (yeah, I know, mixed metaphor... ) Anyway, there's a lot to consider, and I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I think we need to pay special attention to the fact that there are two fundamentally different types of H.R. orgs: official/governmental -- which seems to be what Category:Human rights bodies may have been intended for -- and independent/non-governmental, which seem to be a better match for Category:Human rights organizations. So we may, for example, want to think about renaming and/or redefining & repurposing Category:Human rights bodies, instead of doing away with it. Like I said, no firm conclusions yet, just something to think about. (I've posted notice of this CFD at WikiProject_Human_rights.) Cgingold 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• It's fine to have a structure to encompass governmental & non-governmental -- it's a fundamental distinction throughout the orgs tree. I would suggest, however, that the term "bodies" is not clearly governmental, and the contents of the category don't reflect any governmental/NGO distinction (probably because the category description expressly encompasses NGOs). So if we *do* rename/repurpose then I hope the names could be clear. (I raised the issue on the category talk pages a while back and got no answer for a while, but didn't think to raise it at the wikiproject.) ... and now I'm realizing that earlier today I also found Category:Human Rights NGOs, which I nominated separately without mentioning this nom. Oops. Obviously better to consider all together. Can we close this one and post it at 12/4 CFD for comprehensive consideration of all cats & issues? --Lquilter (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, better word choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Most of the other categories I come across use "organizations". thisisace (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Organizations based in Vermont to Category:Associations in Vermont

Nominator's rationale: Merge, The standard for all the other states is Category:Associations in Vermont; that category already exists, and this one was apparently created without realizing that. No real difference in use of the two categories. Lquilter 00:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom to follow established naming convention for all states of the US. Hmains 02:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Organizations" is more general than "associations," and so should be the name chosen if only one or the other is to exist. Just because the other categories are named "associations" doesn't make it a good idea. In fact, "Organizations" is the usual standard - there isn't even a top-level Category:Associations. I have been meaning to nominate all those categories for renaming. Hopefully, I'll remember to after this cfd is over... --Eliyak T·C 05:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I like "organizations" better than "associations", too, but I was trying to just keep the categories clean & organized for now, while I didn't have the strength to deal with a 50-category tree. --Lquilter 23:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Follows Category:Associations in the United States by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:High fashion brands to Category:Luxury brands

Nominator's rationale: These two cats appear to overlap. There is the sense that "high fashion" is meant to apply only to clothing while "luxury" can apply to a wider grouping, but the difficulty is that many of the companies listed under "high fashion" have expanded into areas such as hotels, perfumes, jewelry, etc so there is already a fair degree of blurring into more general luxury goods. The word "fashion" can imply a subjective judgment as to something that is fashionable, and so is problematic - while luxury is more objectively measured by cost to value. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as hopelessly subjective. One man's luxury is another man's necessity. Otto4711 16:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes great, let's leave all those nasty brands orphaned, & not even think of a merge or rename! Johnbod 19:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If any of the articles in either of these categories has no other parent, please let me know and I'll work on finding another appropriate parent. Otto4711 21:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now. A separate category for what are primarily clothing brands should certainly remain; the parent categories are completely different. "High fashion" presents problems, as does "luxury", but the sort of distinction intended is a valid and necessary one. "International fashion brands" might work, although that would of course bring in Levis & Gap etc. This is really for brands that show at the big fashion shows, so possibly "Clothing brands showing at fashion shows" or even "Catwalk fashion brands". Does anyone else have any constructive thoughts? Johnbod 20:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Both are extremely subjective, but it seems like an okay system for now. —ScouterSig 20:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They both have clear meanings inside the industries involved, but of course the marketing confuses that for the consumer. Why do you want merge clothes with other goods? Johnbod 00:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I like the distinction, althought I wonder if "Designer labels" might be a better name for "High fashion brands" as a subset of "luxury brands". - PKM 22:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment I think Category:LVMH brands should be split in to two - fashion & drink. This seems to me the only real problem in the current arrangement as regards items that are not really "fashion". Jewellery, pefume & watches are fine under fashion - they are covered by the Fashion Wikiproject. But not champagne. Johnbod 00:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Maybe you could define the high fashion category by saying it's a brand that shows on-schedule at one of the four major fashion weeks. Subjectivity eliminated, and it really is a useful category for readers. People who want to read about Dior probably don't care about Osh Kosh. 140.247.248.216 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Clothing brands then delete as subjective; answering the critique above: nothing will be orphaned. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "luxury" brands are (mostly) precisely not clothing; try again. Johnbod (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above (under a different IP), at least for clothing this can be totally precisely defined! Only certain brands have runway shows, and these are the same lines that are in fashion magazines and that fashion critics talk about. You can rename the category but it makes no sense to delete when the ways these clothes are designed, hyped, critiqued, and produced is very different than other clothes. 68.160.5.32 (talk) 03:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.