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.
Merge per nom. Category name is a problem too. At the moment there's the risk of someone adding Russell Crowe to it. Grutness...wha? 05:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the merger is not a bad idea, not all of these people are rebels. The term Violent non-state actor was coined as a catch-all term for organizations and political factions "which are wholly or partly independent of state government", hold extensive influence, and which threaten or use violence to achieve their goals. Some of them have turned up to be key opponents for actual governments and entire states. Depending on the definition, they include criminal organizations, social movements, private military companies, corporations that are able to finance their own private military services, groups motivated by religion or ideology, citizen militia, paramilitary groups, warlords and the forces under their command, any militia acting independently or against the government, insurgencies, and terrorist organizations.
That non-state actors proliferate in the modern world has led to arguments that nation-states are on decline and increasingly unable to exercise their authority. "The proliferation of non-state actors in the post–Cold War era has been one of the factors leading to the Cobweb Paradigm in international politics.[1] Under this paradigm, the traditional Westphaliannation-state experiences an erosion of power and sovereignty, and non-state actors are part of the cause. Facilitated by globalization, NSAs challenge nation-state borders and sovereignty claims. MNCs are not always sympathetic to national interests, but instead are loyal to the corporation's interests. NSAs challenge the nation-state's sovereignty over internal matters through advocacy for societal issues, e.g. human rights and the environment.[2] Armed non-state actors operate without state control and are involved in internal and trans-border conflicts. The activity of such groups in armed conflicts adds layers of complexity to traditional conflict management and resolution. These conflicts are often fought not only between non-state actors and states, but also between multiple NSA groups. Interventions in such conflicts is particularly challenging given the fact that international law and norms governing the use of force for intervention or peacekeeping purposes was primarily written in the context of the nation-state.[3]Dimadick (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This whole area is difficult to categorise. Definitions are vague and subjective, and situations change over time. Rebels and terrorists may become the official government forces. But non-state actors doesn't seem helpful - It's a bit like non-government organisations, a negative definition which could encompass an enormous field. Rathfelder (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the articles are about organisations which most people would characterise as rebels - in Ireland or Kosovo. If this category exists then it would encompass thousands of paramilitary organisations and the like. Dimadick's contribution illustrates how nebulous the term is. It might be suitable for articles discussing the concept. It isn't suitable for an alternative way of categorising articles about the organisations - which is confusing enough already.Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder has a point here. Potential opposers of the merge should at least be specific on which 'non-state actors' cannot be characterised as rebels, if any at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Taking the article Violent non-state actor ("VNSA") at face value, there seem to be several groups which are VNSA's but not rebels in any but a convoluted sense. In the section of the article under types there are two competing sets of groups that fit the definition: In the first set are listed: criminal organizations (e.g., drug cartels), people's movements (e.g., the Naxalite-Maoist insurgency in central India), private military companies (e.g., floating armories in the Indian Ocean), religious or ideological groups (e.g., Boko Haram), citizen militia (e.g., the anti-balaka movement in the Central African Republic), paramilitary groups (e.g., the IRA), and warlords (e.g., in Afghanistan). I find it hard to think that many criminal organizations are rebel militias - they aren't trying to rebel against a government and substitute itself as the government; they are most likely best understood as just keeping such parts of the government as law enforcement and tax authorities from impinging upon their "business". Clearly some drug cartels have tried to capture and hold territory from the central government, and also various of the other types of VNSA's have sold drugs to finance their objectives but on the whole those are the rarities not the norm of criminal organizations (most of which presumably engage in illicit activities and only confront governments in furtherance of those activities). One could also quibble with private military companies (usually again profits motivated and unlikely to have an agenda to take, "liberate", or hold territory much less bring down a de jure government). While Boko Haram may be interested in taking and holding territory and the IRA was attempting to unite Ireland, not all armed religious or ideological groups or militias or paramilitary groups are "rebels" in that sense (various right-wing militias in the US; the People's Temple; and many government-allied groups which can be VNSA's per our article). Not sure where that leaves us, other than suffice to say you can be one (VNSA) and not another (Rebel militia). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it leave us? I would actually take this as a plea for transforming the category to a container category for three subcategories: criminal, terrorist and rebel organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement, surely. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Rebel militia groups are but one sub-sub-set of violent non-state actors, so this proposal amounts to merging a set into its subset, like merging Category:United States to Category:Chicago ... or merging Category:Vehicles into Category:BMW concept vehicles. This spectacularly ill-judged nomination is merely one in a ongoing regular series of spectacularly ill-judged CfD nominations by @Rathfelder, whose actions are becoming serially disruptive. I urge Rathfelder to desist from this disruption before sanctions are sought to restrain this timewasting. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only article in the category which is not about rebel militia groups is the eponynmous article Violent non-state actor. Does it need its own category? It's a good article. But the category does not seem very helpful for categorising articles about organisations. Are we to divide non-state actors into the violent ones and the non-violent ones? How do we decide which para-military organisations are state actors - given that they may not be operating in their own state, and that control of their state may change over time? Rathfelder (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
However, your nomination is based on the premise that all violent non-state actors are rebel militia groups, which is simply not true. I do not want to be rude, but I am concerned that you still display little grasp of the concepts involved here, and are apparently unaware of the conceptual gap. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In principle you may well be right. But all the present articles encompassed by this category appear to be rebel militia groups. Rathfelder (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2018 (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: I can't prove it, but I think this category was originally about the characters in the TV series. Over a period of time, as books about the men and the unit (Easy Company) were published, coverage on the pages broadened to included information not included in the series. Note: I recently added a new page about Salve H. Matheson, mentioned in the book by Ambrose who did not appear in the series. The category has outgrown the series. Georgia Army VetContribsTalk 15:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, and add subcat per Grutness. No need to break the "Foo characters" convention. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 13 April 2018 (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:Educational organisations in the Czech Republic[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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. no reason for a distinction Rathfelder (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -- Darwinek (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps reverse merge -- As a member of EU, the Czech republic is likely to use the "s" form of British English not the "z" form of American English. Certainly merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2018 (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: Does not fit into Category:Partnerships and specifically says it is not for organisations. The articles in the category mostly don't fit the definition. Very hard to see how it is defining or useful. Rathfelder (talk) 10:03, 6 April 2018 (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.
Keep. The distinction between state-backed anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption non-governmental organizations is an important one which should be retained. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator does not propose to merge or move anything, so the articles in this category will stay together as a category, while Category:Anti-corruption agencies will stay another category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the distinction will be lost. State anti-corruption agencies are a type of anti-corruption organization, but they are not a type of anti-corruption non-governmental organization. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rathfelder - can you link to the relevant discussion(s) re NGO categories that you allude to in the nom? DexDor(talk) 20:32, 15 April 2018 (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:Regulation of non-governmental organizations[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.
Nominator's rationale: The plan is to keep Category:Non-governmental organizations, but change its text to make clear that it's a topic (not set) category, so these articles should be there. Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is increasing trend of regulating the NGOs. This category provides relevant pages at one place for readers. Merger will defeat the purpose .Shyamsunder (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is already agreed that we move all the articles about organisations out of the Category:Non-governmental organizations, remove all the geographical subcategories and make it about the regulation and management of such organisations. This subcategory is then superfluous. Rathfelder (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per @Oculi, whose rationale explains how this is yet another item in the torrent of spectacularly ill-judged CfD nominations by @Rathfelder. Even if the bad idea of moving organisations out of Category:Non-governmental organizations is implemented, regulation is still an important and distinct subset of the broader topic of NGOs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 12 April 2018 (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:French anti-cult organizations and individuals[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.
Keep -- Though it is a somewhat small category, it does not fit well with the content of the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep" "There is no particular reason to diffuse parent Category:Anti-cult organizations and individuals specifically to French nationality while it hasn't been diffused by any other nationality" Thats's a bad reason: one can create similar categories for other countries. Apokrif (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would not encourage mixing individuals and organizations for any other country either. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There are many country-specific categories already. Apokrif (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other country categories directly mixing up individuals and organizations? Which one(s)? They probably need to be split or merged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2018 (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: Overcategorization. Nondefining characteristic. All MLB managers are notable, whether or not they win a World Series. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keeping The only reason I created the category was because I had already created a category for National Football League head coaches who had won a Super Bowl, and for National Basketball Association head coaches who won an NBA championship. Thus, my rationale for creating a category for World Series-winning managers. Mr. Brain (talk)
I understand why you made it, but WP:OTHERSTUFF existing doesn't mean the others should exist. So, I'm going to find and add those categories here, and we'll let the community decide if we keep them or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep winning the World Series is probably the pinnacle of a baseball manager's career - perhaps akin to an Oscar for a director's career. Does it define them; probably in the Wikipedia sense. Would it be in the first paragraph of the bio, almost certainly, the manager would be called a "World Series-winning manager" similar to an "Oscar-winning director". Is this an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument? Perhaps, or perhaps it's a reflection of what matters or is defining in WP parlance. I do note that the Super Bowl has a category for winners that encompasses both players and coaches; one could argue that winning the Super Bowl for the bench-warmer is less defining than many of the other awards available (MVP, Pro Bowl), but for the coach - there is but one head coach and he, like the World Series manager, is measured entirely on the the team's success as a whole (not whether his quarterback/left-fielder was chose for the All Stars, how many sacks/errors his defense recorded, or other such statistics). On balance, it seems a keeper category as a pinnacle of career, that many very good managers have failed to achieve and those who have are in a Wikipedia sense defined thereby. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added the other two categories. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If consensus is to delete, then listification/templatisation would be useful. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keeping. Winning a world championship as a head coach/manager in professional sports proves that you were at one point or another an elite manager/head coach. I therefore propose keeping all these categories on the grounds of historical significance. Mr. Brain (talk)
You can't vote twice. And I doubt that anyone ever considered Jake Stahl, for instance, as an "elite manager/head coach". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a small favor I ask from you guys: Kindly let me know when the categories I created (or at least tried to) will be deleted or kept in a timely fashion on my talk page, please. (P.S. I'm not trying to cast another vote. Thanks.) Mr. Brain (talk)
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match standaed category naming conventions. GiantSnowman 07:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge -- I do not care which. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for maintaining standard. Lorstaking (talk) 07:54, 11 April 2018 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 3#Category:Anti-corruption non-governmental organizations. ℯxplicit 05:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
— Duplicate vote: Mr. Brain (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)