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: Lionsgate and Starz have completed their merger yesterday, so the current/active Starz companies (such as Anchor Bay and Starz Encore) would be moved into the Lionsgate subsidiaries category, while the the inactive/former companies (such as Overture Films) would be moved into the Former Lionsgate subsidiaries category. 47.54.146.61 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Been a few days, Just Be Bold Lipsquid (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose this is just a proposal, without a clear rationale to explain why. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2016 (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: Highly subjective, POV categories. Crispus Attucks, Pancho Villa? The idea of martyrdom is well established enough in religious contexts, but there's no way to objectively categorize political "martyrs". "Executed revolutionaries" is fine, but I'm recommending deletion of the other two subcats. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective, POV. Neutralitytalk 00:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only reason needed is it is entirely subjective Lipsquid (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'em all. Categories aren't for political propaganda. Bishonen | talk 21:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Comment -- I do not like these. I checked the Maoist one: three articles contained two minor females, who were killed for adherence to the Communist Party (CCP) during the civil war, and one victim of an industrial accident given a grand funeral. If there is merit in the category, it is people celebrated by CCP as martyrs for their cause. This elevated Maoist communism to a religion, but perhaps that is not all that far fetched. The Tamil case seems to relate to those killed in the civil war. I suspect that some were merely killed in the fighting, not executed, so that a category relating to how they died is perhaps not satisfactory: there is no authority to proclaim them as martyrs. The revolutionary parent is a mishmash. Martin Luther King was assassinated. Allende fought to the death against a right wing revolution. At best it needs heavy purging or splitting into more specific categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and also per precedent regarding non-religious martyrs. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too much POV disputed to be a neutral category name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (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:Organizations that support husband-wife marriage[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: POV title that's ill-defined and ambiguous. Human Rights Campaign would still fall under this category as it supports other sex marriages as well as same sex ones. EvergreenFir(talk) 04:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Meaningless category, who doesn't support husband-wife marriages? Lipsquid (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. Probably half the organizations in the world support Husband-Wife marriages. Planned Parenthood probably does. The United Nations probably does. Is this category really Organizations that oppose same sex marriages? That is what it sounds like to me. If that is the case then that's what the category should be called. Carptrash (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. What a useless category! Even pro-gay organizations support the traditional husband-wife marriage. Although likely not the poly marriages of certain religions.
Delete. So broad as to be meaningless. I can't at short notice think of any organisations that oppose husband-wife marriage. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category provides a unique grouping of those Wiki-articles covering organizations which support husband-wife marriages. There are no comparable categories. It is an important, world-wide set. The terms "Husband" and "Wife" and "Marriage" and "Organizations that support" are clearly understood (may I suggest by 99% of the population) by way of definitions. I would respectfully suggest that it is not "ill-defined and ambiguous". The term husband-wife marriage is more readily understood than possible alternatives such as, man-woman marriage, or male-female marriage (let alone cismale-cisfemale marriage or other LGBTI marriage or traditional marriage). On a quick count there could be 60 notable Wiki-organizations in this category. Most have existed - with a primary purpose of - supporting marriages, families and their children, long before same-sex marriage became an issue. By simply categorising and grouping them as "Opposing same-sex marriage" denigrates their history, valuable work and contributions. If you believe there is a clearer categorization rather than the term "husband-wife marriage", I would be interested in seeing it. B20097 (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost every Christian denomination, and many other religious organisations, along with most government social welfare organisations "support husband-wife marriage" in the sense that they encourage and assist couples to stay together rather than split up. Maybe category:divorce lawyers and category:furniture retailers get more business by not supporting it, but as others have said, the title is close to meaningless. --Scott DavisTalk 06:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has no validity here. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a category so broad as to be ridiculous. Would include just about every top-level government and religious group, as they make recognized marriages possible. The initial selector's list makes it pretty clear that the goal is to list anti-same-sex-marriage groups. --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I've looked into a number of these articles and the primary purpose of nearly all of these organizations is political activism. So while the category name doesn't make sense I wouldn't mind keeping the category and renaming it to Category:Right-wing activism since we also have Category:Left-wing activism. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (i) This category appears to be created as a "nicer" version of Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, and as per WP:NPOV that category should be used. (ii) As others say, nearly every group in the same-sex marriage debate supports husband-wife marriage, making this category almost useless. (iii) If we add "only husband-wife marriage" to the category, then this category is ill defined. The Iona Institute in Ireland was added to this category. They are an active opponent of same sex marriage, however I wouldn't be surprised if they were opposed to Interfaith marriage in Christianity, a.k.a. "mixed marriages", even between a man and a woman. How many other organisations in this Category fall into this "opposed to interfaith marriages"? should they be added this this category? ____Ebelular (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who doesn't support it? When organizations self-identify as supporting husband-wife marriage, it's mere code for opposing same-sex marriage, and we already have that category. I note the single "Keep" vote so far is from the creator of the category. That's not a problem, but it's usual to identify as such. Bishonen | talk 11:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - seems to have same intent of existing Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage as mentioned above. Is it the intent to also add every marriage equality organisation to the category because afaik each of them also support h/w marriage? ... And the addition of the See also wikilink to a book article just added to top of category page also seems odd. JennyOz (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Violates WP:NPOV and WP:CATDEF by attempting to portray 'Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage' as something they are not. Categories are for defining characteristics of the subject. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define. - MrX 12:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of organizations that oppose this, meaning that the category is useless. "Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage" already exists, I believe. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The wording is nonsensical since many organisations support 'Husband-wife marriage'. It should be renamed 'organisations that oppose same-sex marriage'. Obscurasky (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So far there is no opposition against the alternative proposal to rename that was posted halfway this discussion. The main objection seems to be the name of this category (obviously), but not its coherence. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See 08:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the objection to renaming is implicit in all the statements that there already is a category for what appears to be the intended-to-be-categorized attribute of this category, which is groups opposing same-sex marriage. The suggested rename does not reflect either what the current category says it's about nor what the selection of items in the category appears to be about. If there's some idea that the recommended category should exist, then that could be said of thousands of other possible categories; it should not be a rename of this one. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A meaningless title (unless it means "oppose same-sex marriage" - in which case use that openly) created no doubt in pursuit of some political objective. Emeraude (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term "husband-wife marriage" gets 891 hits in a GoogleBooks search, several of which are irrelevant, such as "John Wesley's Teachings, Volume 3: Pastoral Theology". It is not a neologism, but it seems to be rather rare. And honestly based on the definition, I was expecting to see organizations such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God, a Mormon splinter group with a theology based on the divine revelation "that plural marriage should not cease". They are in support of marriage between a husband and multiple wives. Dimadick (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a ridiculously WP:POV misrepresentation of what's actually intended: there are virtually no notable organizations out there which oppose husband-wife marriage, so very nearly every organization in existence would belong here. Even pro-SSM organizations are not anti-OSM per se, because nobody but nobody thinks that everybody regardless of sexuality should be forced to enter an SSM instead of an OSM — SSM groups support equality of SSM to OSM, not primacy of SSM over OSM. And while I'll grant that there are some organizations out there that think marriage is an outdated institution that should just be abandoned entirely, their position isn't "abandon OSM but keep SSM" either, so even their positions couldn't be characterized as opposition to "husband-wife marriage" specifically. Supporting OSM is not what's defining about these groups — what's defining is that they oppose SSM. And we already have a category for that. Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This is mere obfuscation. Who's going to tell a same-sex couple that their marriage can't include a husband and a wife. What's really meant here is man-woman which highlights the intended meaning—oppose same-sex. Debouch (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - evn the most extreem of LGBT rights movements don't oppose husband-wife marriages, just the lack of an alternative. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My problem is more along the lines of WP:OPINIONCAT: these organizations hold a variety of positions and this one doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Time for a snow close and implementation. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorizing each group by what opinions that they have (or had) is a disaster. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this is (as I expect) meant as a euphemism for Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, it's redundant to that category. If it means what it literally says, it's unnecessary: it's hard to find any organisation anywhere that doesn't have a favourable view of marriage between men and women. That's not really a defining characteristic of any group. Robofish (talk) 13:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a euphamism. This is the way the organizations themselves present their views. The deletion of this name would result in POV-pushing against these people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the question is not how they present themselves, but rather how they are covered in secondary sources.Naraht (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 30#Category:Starz Entertainment Group. — ξxplicit 02:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
