The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 09:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge with Category:High school football in Louisville and delete. The nominated category doesn't match the standard of "sport in state/city". All of the existing articles deal with high school football programs in Louisville, and thus belong in a Louisville-specific category. However, I also created a new category of Category:High school football in Kentucky as a catch-all for future Kentucky HS football articles. — Dale Arnett 23:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Dale's new Category:High school football in Louisville ∈ Category:High school football in Kentucky. × Meegs 00:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete one, listify the other (why was this an umbrella nomination?) -- Kbdank71 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:List of Universities and Colleges in Tripura ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Category:List of Kerala Cartoonists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• [Listify/]Delete [both]:
  List of Universities and Colleges in Tripura:] Per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 1#Category:List of Universities and Colleges in Tripura to Category:Universities and Colleges in Tripura. Currently empty and previously deleted. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  List of Kerala Cartoonists:] This is already a list posing as a category. It looks like it was created accidentally in the wrong namespace and it has no members. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Listify/delete both per noms; misunderstanding of category nature (and faulty capitaliz/sation). David Kernow 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note that someone modified my original nomination text. The original nomoinations are here [1] and [2]. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and mark as {{ deletedcategory}}. the wub "?!" 09:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Mark as {{ deletedcategory}}, to match Category:Dictators. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Mark per nom. David Kernow 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Mark per nom. Choalbaton 22:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Just delete it. Protected deleted categories should be reserved for problem categories, and this one does not have a history of recreations. - EurekaLott 02:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Mark per nom as it could never be a valid category. It isn't like the world might change in some way that makes this term neutral. Wimstead 18:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Synonyms for feces ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. The subject matter entirely aside, this sets a bad precedent for word-based categories (rather than topic-based categories). Powers ^T 22:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete with extreme prejudice per nom. — Dale Arnett 00:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Powers. × Meegs 00:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete/listify. David Kernow 03:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - word-based categorization is not a good idea. Michael 06:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 11:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, this is a job for Wiktionary - HKMarks 01:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom VegaDark 05:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Culture of Yugoslavia to match other categories in Category:Yugoslavia. the wub "?!" 09:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Culture of former Yugoslavia, to expand the ( frozen yogurt?) acronym. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nominator. Gene Nygaard 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Since the culturing occurs before the freezing, shouldn't it be the freezing of cultured yogurt? Gene Nygaard 10:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. FYI, I also corrected an obvious typo in the nomination: "Yugoslavia" instead of "Yogoslavia". — Dale Arnett 00:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, I fixed the tag as well. I guess I was still thinking of Yogurt. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: there isn't any current Yugoslavia, the former is redundant. The context for people using term former Yugoslavia (in their language) is nostalgic remembrance of happier times before the wars and this, I guess, is not intention of the cat. Pavel Vozenilek 02:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I thought of that too, but ... then I was looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Former Yugoslavia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment why do we need "former"? Yugoslavia just ceased to exist... 132.205.44.134 01:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Culture of Yugoslavia for brevity. Brammen 12:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Humor magazine to Category:Humor magazines

• Rename. I, the creator of the category, made a typo when submitting it. GilliamJF 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename. JF, changing from singular to plural meets the speedy renaming criteria. You could have listed it there. — Dale Arnett 00:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move to speedy per Dale. David Kernow 03:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per above. Michael 06:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Notable Members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc to Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. the wub "?!" 10:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers to Category:Members of Alpha Phi Alpha

• Rename, Per WP:NCCAT; presumably only the "notable" ones are in Wikipedia. Also, remove the "Fraternity, Inc" to match the main article. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 19:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per ProveIt -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, convention of Category:United States student societies. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note, I had voted to merge another category into this one, but then the target was changed. It's improper to replace the target in the middle of an ongoing discussion ... but in any event, bothers or members is the usual convention. When closing this discussion a very detailed examination of edit history will be needed to determine who voted for what, since many of the current votes for merging were speaking of the original topic ( Category:Notable Members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc) and should now be considered invalid. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per Provelt. — Dale Arnett 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per ProveIt, assuming the fraternity and "Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc." are (essentially) the same. David Kernow 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge, but the real category to rename is Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. The notable category orginally listed was created just 1 day ago and is really a duplicate. The author was unaware of the Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. You can look on my talk page for his statement. Rename, but use the Alpha Phi Alpha brothers category. The Notable Members Alpha Phi Alpha . . . can be deleted. Ccson 04:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per ProveIt. Michael 06:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge Category:Notable Members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc to Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers. - choster 16:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I was the original nominator of this entry, which someone else modified. Unfortunately the edit history here is a mess and is too much effort to ask an admin to have to sift through. I believe that consensus was properly reached before the modification for a decision to Merge Category:Notable Members of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc into Category:Alpha Phi Alpha brothers, but I have absolutely no objection if the closing admin wants this to just be cancelled and relisted properly. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Towns in Suriname to Category:Cities and towns in Suriname

• Rename, This category includes all cities and towns from the capital down. By contrast the list was at List of cities in Suriname until I moved it to List of cities and towns in Suriname. Brammen 18:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and other similarly-named categories. David Kernow 03:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Michael 06:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency. - Darwinek 22:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Religious Symbols to Category:Religious symbols

• Rename, Naming conventions. GilliamJF 18:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Move to speedy per similar nom above. David Kernow 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename per Wiki policy. Michael 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 09:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Bionicle species into Category:Bionicle groups

• Merge. Currently, the only difference between the two is that "groups" are made up of a set of characters while "species" are made of a set of breeds within those species, which are just as different from each other as the individual characters in the "groups" are. Blurring the line even further between the two is that several "groups" consist of a single race anyway. Drakhan 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge. No problem. In fictional things, the diference of Groups and Species are very little. Always, the Bionicle wildlife haven't many articles. Antidermis2319 22:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per above. Michael 06:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was obvious keep necessary maintenance category, kept only recently. Guy 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC) Category:Articles with unsourced statements ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) reply

• Delete, most editors who have commented on this category's talk page agree that this is not a useful category. It is far too large and difficult to navigate. I am open to any proposals that would help wikipedians locate, subcategorize and source a manageable number of articles with unsourced statements. But it is not helpful to automatically dump tens of thousands of articles into one useless category. The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy keep per previous DRV that {{ fact}} should retain its category. See ANI archive and links therein. Dragons flight 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or at least move to the talk page. Brammen 18:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep How else are we supposed to find these and make wikipedia better? Lkinkade 21:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Useful and necessary category, used to locate and contain articles with a major problem (necessary citation being absent). I agree that its usefulness would be dramatically increased if there was a convenient way to display the intersection of this category and some other category of interest. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete This category is a scar across the face of Wikipedia. John254 attempted to speedy close this debate, which was completely out of order. Who awarded him a infinite number of votes? Casper Claiborne 11:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. The category has a function: helping people who want to provide references find articles where they can do so. But I agree that the catefory is overpopulated, and some way to split this thing up should be discussed the same way we split the stub category into subcategories. For now though, this is an important part of our cleanup tools and should stay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep there is a method being developed now to split this cat up into several others, so for now, this should stay to give us a benchmark. Plus, if it is too large, then just pick random articles, find the template and either cite the fact or remove it. It's that simple. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 13:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Please do not split it as massive category clutter will quickly ensue. Making a bad situation worse is not an improvement. Twittenham 14:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It is useless as it is and subdivision is a very bad idea as there is no one subdivision scheme that could work. Twittenham 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Major maintenence category. Very useful. Its large size is because noone wants to empty it the proper way. Why not try to help its huge backlog rather than pan for its deletion? In fact, this category is one of the major pieces of work that should be done on wikipedia. Everything should be sourced. Kevin_b_er 15:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep this useful work category. Not sure why it is being suggested for deletion in the first place. ++ Lar: t/ c 16:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Can't see what deleting it would be expected to accomplish. Maybe it isn't a very useful category, but it's still more useful than no category at all. -- ais523 16:18, 11 September 2006 ( U T C)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional aerokineticists to Category:Fictional wind manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate wind and air - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Zythe, else it would be too long and specific as proposed by Jc37. Michael 06:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional atmokineticists to Category:Fictional weather manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate weather - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Michael 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional chronokineticists to Category:Fictional time manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate time - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional cryokineticists to Category:Fictional ice manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose renaming. The term is in use outside Wikipedia. - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Jc37. Michael 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom in spite of opposition -- "cryokineticists" implies a psychokinesis-like mental power, while the category should encompass characters who use technology or magic (or whatever) to achieve the same effects (like Mr. Freeze, Blizzard, etc). Besides that I'm not sure it shouldn't be "cryokinetics" even if it only covers mental powers. - HKMarks 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:Fictional characters with healing powers -- Kbdank71 14:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional biokineticists to Category:Fictional healers

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I think we need to discuss this one further, to disambiguate between innate healers and physicians. - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Michael 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can innately heal or category:Fictional characters with healing powers - jc37 17:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• How about, Rename to category:Fictional characters with the power to heal or category:Fictional characters with healing powers - either one makes a clearer separation from a doctor with an innate gift to heal and someone with magical/psychic powers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 21:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Fictional characters with healing powers per Jc37 - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional chlorokineticists to Category:Fictional plant manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate plants - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Michael 06:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional geokineticists to Category:Fictional earth manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate earth (less awkward) - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional electrokineticists to Category:Fictional electricity manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate electricity or lightning - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Michael 06:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn -- Kbdank71 14:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional lygokineticists to Category:Fictional energy manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate energy - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename/split to category:Fictional characters who can create energy constructs and category:Fictional characters who can manipulate energy -- this category needs some discussion on definition. - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Should we pause this one untill we work out how to separate the differences between say... Bishop (comics) and Havok and... Green Lantern and the Invisible Woman. How about... an unpopulated category "Fictional energy manipualtors", with "fictional characters who can create energy constructs" and "fictional energy converters" as subcategories? ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 23:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• I think I have to agree that this one should be withdrawn, because "energy" is too vague. Note: technically, Green Lantern utilizes an object which stores energy, and which allows the user to manipulate that energy. Invisible woman seems to manipulate fields of force (a defensive from of telekinesis). Then there is the issue with Dazzler as well (light and sound). - jc37 00:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields -- Kbdank71 14:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional magnetokineticists to Category:Fictional magnetists

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields of force category:Fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Michael 06:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, but I suggest Category:Fictional characters who can manipulate magnetic fields instead. I don't think the "of force" is all that necessary. — Dale Arnett 07:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Dale Arnett - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional photokineticists to Category:Fictional light manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate light - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow -- Kbdank71 14:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Fictional umbrakineticists to Category:Fictional shadow manipulators

• Rename, Removal of neologisms per Talk:List of comic book superpowers. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to category:Fictional characters who can manipulate darkness or shadow - jc37 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Jc37 - HKMarks 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Okay, I agree with all jc37's appendages. I also thought hydrokinesis might be a real word but I was unsure. I did post on the discussion that this was a loose start point for changes and any appendages could be changed to my original suggestions. I considered suggesting "mystical" healers but I thought that would disclude psionics or perhaps robots with advanced "super" doctor skills. I thought that maybe the explaining paragraph would work on the category. How about "fictional characters who can heal others" or "fictional characters with the power to heal"? ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 23:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

"Fictional characters with healing powers"? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

That sounds perfect to me. ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 00:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

I would say jc's on the right path, but they could all (including cryo-) be changed to "Fictional manipulators of (X)," where X is one word. I would suggest those words could be air, weather, time, cold, plants, earth, electricity, energy, magnetism, light, and darkness. (Fictional magical healers might be a good choice for the other one.)-- Mike Selinker 12:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Max Evans isn't magical. Neither is Shawn Farrell or Elixir (comics). I also don't like the "fields of force" which should just be "fields". ~ Zythe ^{Talk to me!} 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

No problem with removing "of force". (It's just a more technical usage.)

As for removing "characters who can", I disagree, else you will have Captain Cold's cold gun, and a host of other objects added to the cat.

How about "Fictional characters with _____ powers", as per Her Pegship's suggestion for healing above? Drakhan 03:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Plant powers, time powers? I don't think the convention would work as well. Of course, we could make the names even longer: "category:Fictional characters with the power to manipulate x" (presuming you like the word "power" in the cat name), or "category:Fictional characters who have the ability to manipulate x". (I think the latter is the most accurate.) - jc37 05:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Universities and colleges in Belize, convention of Category:Universities and colleges by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Brammen 18:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge to conform with convention WVhybrid 03:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Don't redirect, since it could (though unlikely) refer to alumni of La Sierra University. the wub "?!" 10:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Merge into Category:Louisiana State University alumni, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom (perhaps with redirect?). David Kernow 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It's a subcat of Category:Louisiana State University; it probably doesn't need one. No objection though. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 14:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Sydney Swans coaches to Category:South Melbourne/Sydney Swans coaches
• Category:Sydney Swans players to Category:South Melbourne/Sydney Swans players
• Rename. Titles to more accurately reflect contents. JPD ( talk) 11:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment Would this be a precedent to change the names for other team categories where the team has moved location, ie, Brisbane Lions etc. I agree with the idea if the categories are going to be mixed anyway. Ansell 12:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Brisbane was a merger, not a move. Western Bulldogs is perhaps more relevant. JPD ( talk) 10:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Our precedent so far has been to assign people only to the teams they played for, and if the club changes names, the person gets two categories. So there are category:California Angels players, category:Anaheim Angels players, and category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim players. This should be broken in two.-- Mike Selinker 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Mike. — Dale Arnett 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• 'Oppose per Mike - perhaps we should have Cat:South Melbourne Football Club players and leave the Cat:Sydney Swans players as it is, just move the relevant players to the South cat. R o gerthat ^Talk 06:14, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I definitely don't think we need separate categories, as it is the same team. I don't think we should necessarily follow the American baseball precedent in this case, as it is a different context. JPD ( talk) 10:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Should only have category labels for clubs the players participated in. When it was at one place and they played, they should be in that category. When it moves, so what if there are two categories for some players, reflects the difference for this limited set of players but does not affect other older, or newer players who actually played for a club located in the new position. Ansell 01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand. You start by saying that players should have a category for the clubs they participated in, which in this case should mean only one category, but then say that there should be two categories when the club changes location. Ansell and Mike Selinger actually seem to be saying only assign people to the team names that they played under. It seems the name change is actually more relevant to this issue than the location change, meaning that the 'Roos and Bulldogs are affected similarly, not to mention it's hard to know what to do with players from the 1982 season. JPD ( talk) 09:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 14:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Colleges and Universities in U.S. Dependencies to Category:Universities and colleges in United States dependencies Category:Universities and colleges in United States insular areas

• Rename - There are three issues here: 1) capitalization, 2) "U.S." should be spelled out, and 3) the convention in Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by state is to use "Universities and colleges" rather than "Colleges and universities". — Cswrye 07:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 03:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and upmerge as "Dependencies" is an obsolete term for areas now grouped under Category:Insular areas of the United States. For all other Category:Categories by state of the United States, Guam, PR, USVI, and so on are grouped directly alongside states and DC.- choster 01:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • ...or is something like Category:Universities and colleges in United States Insular Areas appropriate...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I don't object to such a rename, but I think it's unnecessary. I think Puerto Rico is the only one with a sizable universities category of its own.- choster 23:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
      • For what it's worth, choster is correct. Puerto Rico is the only insular area with more than one entry, and it already has its own category. American Samoa, Northern Marianas Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands only have one institution each, and I doubt that there will be any more soon. I don't have strong feelings either way about a deletion. If this is renamed, I'm going to change my recommendation to the one suggested by David Kernow except that "insular areas" should not be capitalized. I think that's okay since no one else has been involved in this discussion. -- Cswrye 00:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Kbdank71 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:The Killers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Simply duplicates article The Killers (band). Faith healer 03:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I made it contain both an album and a song category, so that should be enough, per previous nomination on category:Tori Amos, and others.-- Mike Selinker 14:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Mike Selinker. Band/musician categories are well established, to provide a parent for song and album subcategories, or members if a band. Postdlf 17:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete -- Kbdank71 13:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Dragon Door ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Inappropriate category created to promote a specific non-notable company. fbb_fan 03:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (but it's not POV, "longest" is definitely objective. Problem is, you'd have only one person in the category.) -- Kbdank71 13:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Longest film careers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, No criteria listed. How long is longest? If not delete, then perhaps remane into something like "People with film careers longer than xx years". After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - too POV. Michael 03:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and Listify for us movie fans. Not POV, though, since it's based on fact rather than opinion. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes it is POV, because it's subjective what the lower limit should be. Brammen 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
    • How can it be subjective to determine when one's first and last film performances occurred? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It is subjective in part because no criteria defining "longest" is supplied. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 10:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Subjective and trivial. Brammen 18:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. At the worst it could be another poorly defined list. Pavel Vozenilek 02:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I do recall several dreadful movies staring people whose careers in my POV seemed the loooooooooooooooooooooongest. Carlossuarez46 06:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.