This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of popular culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. OK, so the article has been split which everyone agrees was a good move. There's a consensus against moving this to the primary topic, but no real agreement on what disambiguation should be used. As this RM is a bit messy, mixing a few different issues, I'll close this and then start a new RM for the only unresolved question – what should the disambiguator be? Jenks24 (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
English rose (personal description) → English rose – or, as an alternative to this change, please mediate on the content of English Rose. This page has history including a change from Revision as of 1 May 2009 (so as to remove the suggested central definition of the term) to Revision as of 9 May 2009 (which was later changed, returning primary definition to the page at a late stage in "other" in an edit that also relegating a secondary topic to same level) in: Revision as of 4 October 2012. English rose (personal description) was effectively was created on 29 July 2014 as a substantial edit of English Rose and this was done so as to apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. All dictionaries indicate the content of English rose (personal description) as being the primary definition of the term, (ref1, ref2, ref3, ref4, ref5). Content that had been at English Rose was either moved to English Rose (disambiguation) or was incorporated into the main page. Other points of view can also be considered. An editor at Talk:English_Rose asserted that, "English Rose usually refers to one of England's national emblems, the Tudor Rose" but this topic already has its own page. I am also uncertain about the potential validities of a horticultural and a national symbol definition of the term. However, I have developed a substantial content on the horticultural description as Floral reference of the "English rose". A potential national symbol interpretation of English Rose might include reference to the Tudor Rose, to the red rose and to emblems such as that of England's Rugby Football Union's national team. (Is it possible that both name spaces "English rose" and "English Rose" might be used?) The three definitions that I have mentioned seem to be to be the most notable definitions of "English R/rose" and I wondered whether a second definition could occupy the capitalised space. - but, whatever decision you come to, please help with the disambiguation page. I can't see why a recording by the Jam which was never released as a single is placed above actual definitions of the term. Gregkaye (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is currently a conflation of two different concepts, the description of a person, and the moniker for a flower. These two should not be contained in a single article, as they are not closely related concepts. Therefore this article needs to be split into two, one about flowers, the other about Englishwomen. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me and will be happy to get on and do it. I had basically started with the topic in terms of personal description and carried on. PLEASE HELP with thoughts on title of second topic: "English Rose (???)" or just "English Rose" Gregkaye (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the multiple images of particular roses that are currently on this page don't belong. As the disambiguation page English Rose states, the term is used by David C.H. Austin for his creations, a list that is up to him to define, so collecting other sources that state such-and-such a rose cultivar is an English Rose isn't particularly appropriate either. I'd suggest "English Rose (Austin Rose)" as a name for the second page. They are often called Austin Roses by other nurseries that grow and sell them. There is already considerable content at Garden_roses#English_.2F_David_Austin and at David C.H. Austin which should be integrated, I presume by making one longer page that would then be cross-referenced at both those places with Template:Main. There is also a substantial collection of photos at commons.wikimedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
true but it is also possible for a person other than David Austin may cultivate a rose that they may want to define as English. Perhaps this has already been done: http://www.coblands.co.uk/plants/379/Plants/Roses-English-Rose . Gregkaye (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) and, sorry, I had not seen the suggestion placed further down the article screen. English Rose (flower) keeps it simple.
A change of the main section to English rose (person) was originally suggested. I was concerned that this might be interpreted as a person called English rose. Gregkaye (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
We can't have an article as a primary topic just because we can't think of a good disambiguator. The problem is that this is basically a slightly expanded dictionary definition with a few examples. It's not a lot more than a simile. That's why there's no obvious disambiguator. The one that exists is probably the best bet. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
To clarify on English rose (the flower), the term is widely used to describe David Austin's roses – he began experimenting in the 1960s and then branding them as 'English Roses' in the 1980s (so says the Royal Horticultural Society Encyclopaedia of Roses). At this point in time, I don't think any other rose grower would lay claim to the name as they originated from a distinct breeding technique – backcrossing old roses, leanders, etc with later varieties to produce a set of characteristics related to repeat flowering, and so on. This link http://www.coblands.co.uk/plants/379/Plants/Roses-English-Rose shows roses that were all bred by Austin and Coblands is offering them as a retailer. I'd say the current disambiguation is about right. Libby norman (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The split is much better so thanks User talk:Gregkaye. There may be justification for taking the roses out of the main David Austin page and creating a separate page on English Roses (flower), using some of the gallery images. I'll have a think and look at the rose guides and info I have and maybe discuss with other editors who have worked on rose pages on Wiki. The nursery has been developing cultivars since the 1960s and the catalogue is huge, especially when you look at the backlist. The roses are also bred under licence in the US, Australia, etc, so not just an English thing. Libby norman (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
In the Merrie England text Walter Raleigh is in love with a maid of Elizabeth I. I think it would be appropriate if an appropriate renaissance or Elizabethan image could be used in the initial picture. Sorry Kelly :) Gregkaye (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Closed as moved to English rose (epithet); this is a thorny one, but it appears to be generally accepted as the least bad option, once "people" is eliminated (which can not be used as that is generally reserved for designations of distinct cultural groups). bd2412T 16:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
My comment at the time was: "While I don't have a great liking for English rose (personal description), English rose (personage) would need to be pluralised to English rose (personages) or English rose (personage type) which, I think, would be worse. (see: The Black Dwarf (personage))." also see wikt:personage. It is not an requirement that an "English rose" according, to common use of the term, be famous though a common argument would propose that everyone is important. Gregkaye (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
ADD: I am guessing that at time of writing I still wasn't reconciled with the idea that the article represents a padded out dictionary definition when I wrote "I don't have a great liking". Apologies, I should not have carried that content over into this discussion. Gregkaye (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not over-keen on any of them, but I'm OK with (people) as it's basic. English rose (epithet) is accurate. I'm not keen on (personality) at all, and I think (personal description) might actually be better than (personage), which isn't terribly accurate actually. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "epithet" would be a good idea, because of the modern connotation of a derogatory term. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Is that particularly widespread? It's only considered derogatory by people who don't know what the word means, I suggest. In any case, "English Rose" is a simple descriptor, we shouldn't be making this complicated. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but maybe it's a US/UK usage thing. In any case, if both you and I are agreeable to "people", then we don't have a problem here. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. "People" is OK with me. Are these things always plural? Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Another question where I'm not sure. But in this case, we are dealing with more than one person. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that issue might be addressed by revising/expanding this page, to go beyond dictionary usage, and discuss, for example, how the term has been used to refer to people in writing, whether classical literature or contemporary popular press. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no issue. The inclusion of the dictionary definition of English rose within Wikipedia gives clarity and reference to other content in the encyclopaedia just as it did at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English_Rose&oldid=287273605 . There should be no aversion to any content, dictionary or otherwise, if it provides a legitimate service to the reader. Gregkaye (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's picky, but I do think that you are confounding two different definitions of the word "people". You are using the word as in "the American people", "the British people", "the Islamic people", etc., etc. (wikt:people, Noun: def. 2). But here, we are dealing with the word as in "people who have been called English rose", or "people who are movie stars", or "people who write things on the Internet", etc. (wikt:people, Noun: def. 1).--Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
That second definition seems to fit with the English rose (concept associated with people) interpretation which seems relatively vague. On the one hand I see that the word "people" is the term with the greater currency in the English language but on the other hand the terms "appellation", "epithet" and "personal description" are more specific in their meanings. Gregkaye (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I still by far prefer appellation and have also recognised problems with people. As Tryptofish astutely relates: English rose (concept associated with some people). More specifically (as in the dictionary ref/article) the term originated as Basil Hood describe a garden where 'women are the flowers' and in which 'the sweetest blossom' or 'fairest queen' is 'the perfect English rose'. The origin did not merely relate to people but, to connect to the fair skin reference, to the cream.
While "people" is precise enough to meet the very basic Wikipedia standards I think that a definition can do far better and, for me, its between appellation and personal description. The two strengths of appellation are it sounds posh, poetic (and "stuff" like that) and it ends in -tion and is word that defines action. A description is an active thing. People will know that the title English rose is doing something and they may get the feeling that it is doing something potentially classy. At the other extreme one definition of people is the members of a society without special rank or position, with synonyms: the proletariat, the common people, the masses, the populace, the multitude, the rank and file, the commonality, the commonalty, the plebeians, the crowd; derogatorythe hoi polloi, the common herd, the rabble, the mob, the riff-raff, the great unwashed. It doesn't suit. Personal description is not only personal, making it far more specific than "people" and also with a suggestion of qualities, and states "description" as well. Back on the topic of appellation I think that it only applies best to a limited number of terms. For instance people wouldn't normally regard the words skivvy or maid to be appellations. But appellation does apply well to "English rose". The other definition of appellation relates to vine groves that parallels an application to English rose really well. The fact that Wikipedia is not (officially) a dictionary also helps. No concern need be given that appellation may not be suited to describe other descriptions. Wikipedia articles aren't normally about descriptions so consistency in WP:CRITERIA has no important at all. There aren't going to be many other dictionary definitions in Wikipedia. I was the person that created and developed almost all the article content and hope that carries some weight. SupportEnglish rose (personal description) for understandability and secondly English rose (appellation) for specific relevance. OpposeEnglish rose (people). Gregkaye (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
When I referred to that longer page title, I was doing it facetiously, because I see it as unworkable. Although I already said that I could go along with "appellation" as a second choice, I think that posh-ness is a weak rationale for choosing it over "people". Wikipedia page names should be direct and uncomplicated unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary. A desire for posh-ness is not compelling. "People" is entirely logical and appropriate, unless one over-thinks it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
true Tryptofish, facetiously but accurate. I appreciate that WP:PRECISION just requires a result somewhere in the ball park. Its just in this case I think its on the wrong side of the park. My objection is on similar grounds that "people" is general whereas English rose is not. I personally did not think that there was much difference between other terms in which case even an admittedly weak argument counts for something. Sorry this has come up late. Appellation is great. Gregkaye (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I now have this discussion on my watchlist, so you don't need to ping me. I somewhat prefer "people" over "appellation", but I'm not that opinionated about it. But I disagree that "people" is general in this case. "People" as a word without modification is general. But as a modifier of "English rose", put in parentheses just after it, it is abundantly clear that it is a subset of all the people on earth. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Support, in order:
1st: English rose (epithet). Not inherently negative, despite negative epithets being more common. Encouraged by a decent matching article at Epithet.
SmokeyJoe one thing that Tryptofish pointed out that hadn't occurred to me was that Epithet has negative connotations - second para: "In contemporary usage, epithet often refers to an abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrase, such as a racial epithet". I have never been that keen on "personal description" due I guess to clunkiness but that would be my second choice. I still prefer English rose (appellation). Gregkaye (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever participated in a discussion where this much prose was devoted to something this trivial, but I think that any oddness about "people" disappears as soon as one looks at the page: it's full of pictures of people. I still feel that "epithet" does not work. Trying to think of some more options, perhaps either "descriptor" or "women" could be possibilities. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Disagree that epithet has negative connotations, that is an overstatement. Yes, epithets are often used negatively, and these are remarked upon as such, but epithets are far from necessarily negative. For examples, see Category:Epithets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The category info, while really interesting to me personally, shouldn't be given too much credence in this discussion. In Wikipedia categories are rssentially hooks that stuff gets hung on for want of better options. These hooks are also limited in number and range: Category:Names. I wasn't previously aware of the negative connotations of the word but they are there: Google search on: epithet definition. Gregkaye (talk) 02:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Gregkaye on that point, and I would feel very uncomfortable about going with "epithet". To use a non-Wikipedia source, Merriam-Webster gives two definitions, the first of which is the usage that SmokeyJoe is citing, and the second of which is the one that concerns me. That second definition is obviously not the only definition, but it's used sufficiently widely that I feel strongly that we can do better here. At this point in the discussion, I can support English rose (people), English rose (women), English rose (appellation), or English rose (descriptor), and I have reservations about the other possibilities that have been discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am not persuaded by by your reluctance for "epithet" and it remains my first preference for the reasons already given. Agree with "It's only considered derogatory by people who don't know what the word means" said above. English rose (descriptor) I'll insert into second place. The first meaning of "epithet" is essentially "descriptor". Given that others don't like "epithet", I suggest that English rose (descriptor) be seriously considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:) Back on the Dr Who descriptions we have gone from the English rose (people) to the English rose (descriptor). All the same this second choice has a simple functional excellence. I still like English rose (appellation) for its horticultural flavour and suggestion of quality but it lacks the currency of descriptor. I am happy for admin to make a choice. They both seem to be good options. Gregkaye (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The deadlock here has caused me to get to a conclusion that I should probably have reached earlier and which I would never even have considered but for inputs on this page.
Support, in order:
1st. English rose (epithet), I still agree with comments re the negative connotations of epithet. My instant reaction to this was to go into defensive mode re my creation. In reality Merle Oberon was limited to a typecast as an "English rose" and gossip news regarding certain Celebs has spoken of them breaking out of the English rose image. The negative connotations of epithet may on occasion be quite suitable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I think that the close got it wrong, but I don't think it's very important. I'm now taking this page off my watchlist, so please ping me if you want me to respond to anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Tryptofiish: Rachel Weisz is Jewish (both parents) and Merle Oberon was alsmost certainly Anglo-Indian, or Anglo-Sri Lankan. They should not be in this list. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you pinged me, because I never expressed an opinion about who should or should not be on the list. I don't care very much, but I'm generally OK that to be an "English rose", a person has to be somewhat English. But if someone is English, I'm not comfortable with disqualifying them because of their religion, or because of a mixed Anglo-something else ancestry. To do so seems a bit ugly to me, although I trust you did not mean it that way. In any case, I think that a better approach would be to rely upon sources. If there are sources that called these two people "English rose"s, then include them here, with inline citations, and if there are no such sources, then leave them out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
P123ct1Elizabeth Taylor was a convert to Judaism and I would not like to say that this made her less English. Stephen Fry or Daniel Radcliff are both Jewish and are just about as English as you can get. The article is about a generally well meaning epithet and its use as may be applied a woman or girl "who is from or is associated with England." To some extent it is a shallow term which can be viewed both positively and in some cases negatively. The article on Rachel Weisz starts by saying "...is an English film and theatre actress", but this is not of importance in an article about the use of an epiphet. It is a shallow article about perceptions. The Italians have a similar phrase and may be applied to anyone who was regarded to fit the image/preconception. Gregkaye✍♪ 04:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I meant it completely innocently and wish I had never made the comment now. I addressed Tryptofiish as I thought that is what you requested, but obviously misunderstood. I raised this because to me an English rose is quintessentilally about physical appearance and I do think the two people mentioned look exotic and not English, but that is all I had in mind. Absolutely no criticism was intended except that they seemed out of place. As usual Wikipedia is a minefield and one has to be circumspect in everything one says in it! ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
I understand, and that's perfectly alright with me. Please don't be concerned about it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Right before the image gallery is the sentence Women who have been frequently described in the media or with note in media history with the words "English rose" include. This is followed by a bunch of images with a bunch of references where (in the references) the subject is described as an English rose. It is not forbidden to use the Daily Mail in this instance, because the Daily Mail said that the person in question was an English rose, which corroborates with the entire point of the section.
If you want to remove the DM as a reference on this page, you'll have to fundamentally redefine that section and the inclusion criteria. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Now, personally, I think that entire gallery should be stripped, making this entire issue moot, but that's not the issue at hand. Primefac (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)