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: This was suggested on the Speedy page, but it did not fit the criteria there. I am inclined to agree with the original nominator that there is an overall anti-pornography movement. – FayenaticLondon17:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomalous+0: For the preceding 2 categories, would the change modify the scope of the category? Is the category about different and unrelated anti-X movements, or about a single or connected movement? -- Black Falcon(talk)04:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Anti-pornography category, I think singular is preferable because any "sub-movements" (to coin a phrase) are part of the overall Anti-pornography movement. The mere fact that the article refers to "movements" doesn't mean they should be regarded as separate and distinct from the overall movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to keep plural (if there's one movement, why are there so many articles, I ask myself). It seems unlikely to me, given the geographic and time ranges, that half these groups have even heard of the other half. Mary Whitehouse's lot (older British readers will recall it), now rebranded Mediawatch-UK, is not there, nor are a number of older groups, now presumably defunct. Nor is the US National Legion of Decency. As always, people should spend less time worrying about the minutiae of category names, and more about whether they contain the obvious basic contents! You know who you are. Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind, there is a fundamental distinction between movements and organizations. Movements are comprised of organizations along with large numbers of individuals. This is true across the board, regardless of what particular movement you're talking about. In this case, all of those organizations are part of the Anti-pornography movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2019 (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.
Weak support, only for consistency reasons. The form "Royal houses of Norway" is actually more to the point than "Norwegian royal houses" which may imply "Royal houses from Norway", so a wider nomination with a reverse rename would be appreciated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (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:Fictional characters with energy manipulation powers
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.
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: The current name is excessively vague; the category contains articles about caucuses used in selecting US presidential candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 7 February 2019 (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.