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.
Support. For all American clergy serving during the American Revolution and for all European clergy serving during WWII, the respective wars almost inevitably must have played a role in their life and in their profession, so the wars are not a good characteristic to subdivide clerics. Note: it may be advisable to merge manually, since a number of the articles in these categories are already in a subcategory of Category:20th-century clergy or Category:18th-century clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The WWII category has a sub-cat with 200 chaplains in it. That needs to be split, probably by combatant. American Revolution one is well-populated, so that I do not see why we need to do anything with it. Clergy by war is a container. Whehter we need it depends on what other categories we have. I note there is a military chaplains by war, with a lot of sub-cats: could we downmerge some of the rest (probably manually)? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not disperse the chaplain sub-cat of World War II cat That category only has 191 entries. Dispersing it at present would lead to way too many small categories. It works well as a unified category at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2017 (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: Category that's routinely misused because its actual purpose is misunderstood. As I noted in the subcategory batch below, the vast majority of film festivals that exist at all are "international" in the sense of exhibiting films from multiple countries rather than restricting themselves exclusively to just one country's cinema -- so the festivals aren't defined by the fact of doing exactly what most film festivals do. What this category was meant for, rather, was the small number of film festivals that are staged internationally, such as by moving around to different countries every year or by being held in two or more countries simultaneously (e.g. in two adjacent border cities). So the category needs to be either renamed to make its purpose less ambiguous and purged of entries that are "international" in the wrong sense of the term, or just deleted as too much trouble. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2017 (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: Category tree that misconstrues the intentions of the parent Category:International film festivals. The vast majority of all film festivals that exist at all are "international" in the sense of exhibiting films from multiple countries rather than just one -- although film festivals that focus exclusively on one country's national cinema do exist, they're the minority rather than the norm -- so film festivals aren't defined by the fact of doing exactly what most film festivals do. What the category was meant to contain was the relatively small number of film festivals that couldn't be categorized by nationality because they're held in more than one country -- e.g. by moving around to a different country every year, or by being jointly staged in two or more different countries simultaneously. That is, the category was supposed to be for the internationalness of the festival's location, not the internationalness of a single-location festival's programming. Parent category also needs to be purged, but that will be listed for discussion separately. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of them are already there (or in a subcategory at the state or province level in the case of Canada and the US), so this wouldn't need to be done comprehensively, but there would certainly need to be some caution taken to ensure that any festival that isn't in any "Film festivals in (Location)" category was readded to one. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete in its current form. This closure is without prejudice against the re-creation of this category with a well-defined and narrow focus, keeping in mind what has been said below. If it is recreated and that cannot be maintained, we may well end up here in the future. --Tavix(talk)22:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whoa. What is this? It's just a random collection of men who have had something happen to them and things like war. This either needs to be deleted or have some very narrow scope and focus... ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯22:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this category is just to complete the matching categories for Category:Crimes against Women, Category:Violence against women, and Category:Violence against men.
Every gender category that exists for a topic that's specific to women does not necessarily have to be balanced directly against an equivalent for men. Violence against women is a thing that happens to women because they're women, and does not include every incident that happens to have some female victims — for example, the bombing of a city in war is not "violence against women" just because some of the casualties happened to be women, but would only be "violence against women" if the fact that they were women was itself the reason for the bombing. For this to be justified, similarly, what would need to be demonstrated is not that there have been violent incidents with male victims, but that there have been violent incidents against men specifically because they were men — and there are very few things that could actually demonstrate that at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, but I must respectfully disagree. There are many published legal decisions and studies of crimes against men. There are valid cases of both "crimes against women" and "crimes against men". When you have some time, please take a look at these articles as a starting point: SCUM Manifesto, Valerie Solanas, Forced circumcision and Violence against men.
Please consider also the following examples: if the majority of rape victims are women, is rape a "crime against women"? If the majority of war crimes victims are men, are "war crimes" also "crimes against men"?
Also in the discussion of examples, since "crimes against men" are under-reported, or mis-portrayed with respect to their gender-violence aspect, there is limited awareness off this in certain cultures or social groups. A Wikipedia article says: In 2012, a UNHCR report stated that "SGBV (sexual and gender based violence) against men and boys has generally been mentioned as a footnote in reports". Violence against men - sexual violence. Also in the UNHCR link, "Rape is not limited to traditional notions, it is not limited to gender . . . we must recognize rape as torture, rape as rape.". "There are no detailed statistics on the number of male victims of SGBV but, the phenomenon is increasingly being recognized as a protection concern in conflict and forced displacement situations. "
While there are various viewpoints on prevalence and social bias, neither sex is immune from gender-based or gender-influenced crime. If you have any reliable documentation to the contrary, I would be happy to read it. We could certainly delete both the "crimes against women" and "crimes against men" categories. In any case, our final agreement here should be gender-neutral.
Delete. This category is absurd: someone saw there was a "crimes against women" category and decided to create a "crimes against men" category without even so much as looking what was in the women one. The women category mainly contains broad pages about crimes (rather than than individual acts of crimes), apart from a couple of famous murders that are arguably miscategorised. The author of this category has then gone and randomly started mass-adding male murder victims to this category, including every male politician who was ever assassinated as a "crime against men". The implication that JFK was killed because he was male is one of the craziest things I've ever read on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I foresee that a more general category will be lacking a sufficient amount of content. But I'm prepared to wait and see what heavily purging (as proposed below) will bring us. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heavily purge/split -- We have a hotchpotch of murdered men; crimes that can only be committed against men (because of their sexual nature); and notorious criminals guilty of such crimes. Assassinated presidents probably have a more specific category already. Mixing criminals and their crimes is not good CAT-practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or heavily purge and add text explaining criteria for pages to be in the category. These categories (including the violence and women categories) should not contain articles about specific crimes/people as these are already well categorized (by type, year etc) and such categorization could lead to the articles being placed in categories such as crimes-against-English-speaking-people, crimes-against-college-graduates, crimes-against-married-people etc. No article should be in both a crimes-against-men category and a crimes-against-women category (if the article isn't specifically about men/women then it shouldn't be placed in a gendered category). DexDor(talk)10:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an absurd category. There is no reason to organize crimes by the gender of the victim. Next we'll have Crimes against Asians, Crimes against teenagers, and Crimes against LGBT playwrites from New Jersey. Kaldari (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and Keep - There are crimes which fit into this category. As DexDor said, These categories (including the violence and women categories) should not contain articles about specific crimes/people as these are already well categorized. But there are many articles which would fit into both categories. AG47Talk14:30, 20 December 2017 (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.
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: While I've noticed that many U.S. stage theater groups use British English in their names (is it because they are trying to imitate Britain?), just as many use American English. I think it should be renamed to reflect the ties to the U.S. and the tendency of American categories to receive more American attention. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 07:19, 17 November 2017 (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: These categories relating to South Korea are using British English spelling, but the country is dominated by American English due to the influence the United States had for its involvement in the Korean War[1]. I live in South Korea, and can attest that American English spelling, date format, and pronunciation is not only preferred, but also demanded from English teachers even from countries where non-American English is used (like Australia, Ireland, South Africa, etc). The categories should naturally follow that standard. (Category:Disability organisations baseed in South Korea also happens to contain a spelling error as a result of a previous CFD which needs correcting.) ℯxplicit07:16, 17 November 2017 (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.
Procedural oppose, there should be one nomination with all subcats included, not a few scattered nominations. This is important especially because the outcome of the discussion is far from obvious (= based on all previous discussions). If the discussions are separated there is a good chance that they will be closed with different outcomes - which would be the worst possible result. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This has been discussed before, and that should have been mentioned in the nomination. As for usage, the spelling of almost all theatres in the US gives a clue. It's simple: the craft & the profession is called "theater", the genre and most buildings are called "theatre". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2017 (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.
