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:Delete. Category with no inclusion criteria, currently with three articles of people from the category Category:Mental calculators. Delete as too broad and ill-defined. Tassedethe (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete too subjective, and the fact that I'm not already a member proves this category is broken.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All three of the people in this category are in the parent Category:Mental calculators. I'm not sure what "Extraordinary People" is intended to include, but it doesn't add anything here. Alansohn (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Utterly subjective. The three members belong in Category:Mental calculators. However that is a competition winner's category; and I am not sure that it should be allowed: we normally listify award winners then delete the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a puffy and subjective name for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2014 (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.
Category:English football chairmen and investors[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:no consensus. There is a consensus that a renaming is desirable here, but there is no consensus on what the target name should be. Given that, an immediate renomination would not be considered disruptive. The BushrangerOne ping only 03:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Three reasons for the rename:
The current name is unclear, as it may be read to be for English people who are football club chairs, whereas it is for football clubs in England.
The current title is uninclusive as there are female chairwomen (Southampton and Torquay United have them at present), and chairpersons seems to be the standard inclusive noun (e.g. Category:African Union chairpersons is used, even though all post-holders to date have been men).
The sub-categories almost all use "directors and chairman" (30 cats) rather than "chairman and investors" (2 cats).
I'd go with "chairpeople" rather than chairpersons, but both seem clumsy. However, chairman is generally regarded as gender-neutral, and reliable sources like this show that "female chairman" is a valid term (Carsworth uses chairman to describe herself, so it's not just the writer's stylistic choice), so I'd suggest we don't try and gender disambiguate when our options are so clumsy. I support the restructuring of the name though. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 22:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I initially assumed "chairpeople", but it appears not to be used at all on Wikipedia for categories, with chairpersons exclusively used instead. Number57 23:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name change also changes the scope of the category. Chairman and investors are two different aspects. e.g. Roman Abramovich according to his article 'owns' Chelsea F.C. but nowhere does it mention whether he is chairman, or even on the board of directors. I do not follow football so I am probably wrong on that point. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See point three of the rationale. Abramovich is in the Chelsea subcategory, one of the two that use investors instead of directors. However, directors is used far more often. Number57 12:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is your rationale for standardising the category names (with which I agree) but in this case it also changes the scope. Ownership (and investors) is not the same as management (be that chairman or director). Perhaps there needs to be another category for owners of football clubs? (Sorry, forgot to sign it - Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
A separate category for owners/investors sounds like a good solution, if the overlap with chairpersons/directors isn't too great. Agyle (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
REname -- I contend that "chairman" is not a sexist word: madam chairman is not a contradiction. Nevertheless, I think it would be better to call them Category:English football club proprietors. This avoids the question of whether they chair the board of the club. I am not sure that investor is an appropriate word, since few of them get thier money back: it is more like a donation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That rename definitely makes sense, and is probably the best of all those proposed. Lukeno94(tell Luke off here) 20:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That fails to solve the basic problem of the category name being confusing. Are they proprietors of English football clubs, or English proprieters of football clubs? I would, however, support "Proprieters of football clubs in England" as a solution. Number57 12:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The issue is not whether the term is sexist, the issue is common use, and common use is trending towards chairperson, so we should reflect that here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nominator suggested. Use of "chairpersons" probably varies a lot between countries and regions, as well as age groups, and even political stances (e.g., backlash against 1980s-era political correctness), but as a middle-aged American it seems like the natural and preferable term. England may be quite different; just look at what they think "football" means! If "chairperson" really isn't used in England, the suggestion may reflect an American bias, and given the topic I'd reconsider my vote. Agyle (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Directors and chairmen of football clubs in England. If you examine the subcategories they use chairman. So it is better to go with that to keep things in sync. If a later rename from chairman to chairperson is to be considered there should be a new nomination to discuss that issue. This nomination is trying to do too much and we really need to deal with the basic issue of the rename first and then the PC term. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2014 (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:Delete. No need for an eponymous category to hold the main article and a single sub-category. Tassedethe (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2014 (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:Delete. No need for eponymous category to hold one article. Article is already correctly categorized.. Tassedethe (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2014 (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 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:Delete. No need for eponymous category to hold a single article. (If kept the capitalization should be corrected to Category:Bride of the World). Tassedethe (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2014 (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:Rename. This category does not contain lists. Tassedethe (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2014 (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: Not a notable category. Since creation there has been a plethora of names added and removed. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:41, 23 February 2014 (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 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: Non-notable intersection of an American award and a Canadian league. There is nothing inherently special about a Heisman Trophy winner ending up in the CFL. Resolute 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. They appear to be in the parent so no need for an upmerge. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2014 (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.
