< January 3	January 5 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion for purposes of discussion, given that most of the arguments about Category:Medical controversies apply to controversies in general. Mirror Vax 23:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - This is a faulty analogy as this category is actually about debates while Category:Medical controversies is no way about medical controversies, but rather about pseudocientific assaults on medicine. Also Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.--DocJohnny 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your perspective seems a bit contrived or unrealistic, as Western medicine arose largely by means of suppressing a variety of well established practices whose merits, in many cases, are only now being 'rediscovered'. Many medical cotroversies surround the similar substitutions of practical, proven therapeutic measures with far more expensive, profit-making treatments or invasive or coercive interventions. Truly informed consent is often a rarity. Many hospital based interventions have been found to be far less efficacious than home treatments, because the hospital environment often exacerbates trauma. The tradeoffs between hospital versus home births and the methodical dismantling of midwifery is just one glaring example, but the history of medicine has been a case study in the ruthless consolidation of control over service provision in an industry. The fact that many medical professionals deny that controversies even exist is a rather telling aspect of how insular the field has become. Up until the 1980s, clinical studies were rarely funded commercially, but now 75% are funded by corporations, leading to widespread controversy over the validity of research published in medical journals. Ombudsman 09:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm not disrupting Wikipedia; I'm trying to prevent it from being disrupted by the feud between Ombudsman and people such as yourself. Your feud has nothing to do with the intrinsic merit of the category, so it is a disruption of Wikipedia to bring it here. Mirror Vax 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While most (if not all) categories containing the word "controversies" are POV and should be deleted, the same is not the case for articles. The articles contained in this category deal with issues that are genuine controversies and are contentiously debated. The subcats should probably go, however. Soltak | Talk 23:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we're not talking about deleting the articles, just the category. The articles will remain after the category is gone. Mirror Vax 00:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of that, however, my above reasoning stands. The title of the category can in no way be construed as controversial or POV, and really has nothing to do with the below debate regarding Category:Medical controversies. "Debates" is a completely neutral term and accurately describes the content of the articles associated with this category. Soltak | Talk 00:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if we renamed "Medical controversies" to "medical debates", there would be no problem? They mean the same thing. Mirror Vax 21:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These articles are, in fact, about debates. siafu 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meaning what? Mirror Vax 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meaning that (most of - needs to be cleaned up) the member articles are specifically about debates, not just about subjects which some people may debate or consider controversial. Therefore, this category is the logical place to sort them. siafu 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. So what is wrong with sorting the medical debates into a subcat? As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the merit of the category, and everything to do with the Ombudsman feud. Mirror Vax 08:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • My vote on that CfD was based on the fact that if pared down to articles that were purely about controversies, the category would be underpopulated with only two articles. I can't answer for the actions of others. siafu 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: for reasons already covered by siafu and Soltak. Mirror Vax, you're voting "keep" in the medical controversies, and then nominating this? Are you trying to make a POINT? Semiconscious (talk · home) 07:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I nominated it for purposes of discussion, given that there is a debate on deleting its subcategories. Obviously I'm hoping that people will realize that it is illogical to vote 'keep' on this while voting 'delete' on the subcat, or at least force people to think a little bit about what they are doing (fat chance of that, eh?) Mirror Vax 21:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is useful and needed - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Controversies (or Category:Controversial issues). Debate is a formalized system for discussing controversies; Debates are individual sessions utilizing that system, say the October 17, 1984 U.S. presidential election debate or perhaps the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858. "Controversy" and its plural are the prevalent form for the category's contents. - choster 20:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct, but the consensus here is that the word "controvery" is "inherently POV" while "debate" (in the sense of controversy) is neutral. Go figure. Mirror Vax 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but rename: Per Choster's comments. Ombudsman 09:31, 10 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 17:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same as Category:Electronic sports teams (exactly same members), only one is necessary. Zzzzz 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Zzzzz 22:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree.Gator (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree.--Dangerous-Boy 22:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Herrick 07:51, 11 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant categories, for searching by category it would be more helpful if only one category existed, hence proposal of merger. A Y Arktos 21:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per proposal. Sparkit 03:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No argument. siafu 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge No clear division. CalJW 12:31, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 17:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created to WP:POINT after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical controversies was closed with delete. The articles being placed in it by its creator (Ombudsman) are all on his personal wishlist of controversies where it is not a controversy within science but a controversy between Higher Superstition and accepted medical paradigm. As the inclusion criteria are undefined and the category is open for abuse, I suggest it is deleted. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#Category_from_hell for more information on the feud. "This single user is the most tenacious anti-vaccine editor on Wikipedia, and has filled many articles with his choice anti-science on the subject of vaccination..." This is apparently why there are so many 'delete' votes. Mirror Vax 21:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

VOTES

A category for controversial medical techniques and procedures would be good, but in absence of such a category, I vote to keep this one. For those of us who are scientists and not pseudoscientists, charlatans, or religious moralists, we know how to keep something scientific without allowing false self-proclaimed "debate" (like the so-called "debate" over evolution that really isn't) to infiltrate such a category. We can also prevent such a category from becoming a single user's personal playground, which is I think one of the concerns somebody raised above. I would very strongly advocate keeping this category, because at present there is nothing else close to it on Wikipedia. 71.246.77.58 07:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: Interesting summary, but misleading and irrelevant to the issue of whether or not this category would be helpful for Wiki readers and editors, since its actual purpose is to help others find important information more easily rather than to make a point. If the above summary is to be believed, questions about Vioxx, about the sudden materialization in recent years of (reportedly) 1.8 million autistic children in China,[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and about whether electro-convulsive 'therapy' needlessly causes permanent brain damage, are all based on old wive's tales. For someone who contends that they base their perspective on science, it seems odd that the first step taken is putting up an AfD before asking questions, the very basis and essential first imperative of the scientific process. The apparent exaltation of medical orthodoxy, as pitted against superstition, opens up new questions about exactly what divine authority the extant 'medical paradigm' is channelling. Ombudsman 20:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the Chinese have learnt to diagnose autism. I find the figure of 1.8 million not very credible. Even if only 10% of the population was children, that would mean that 1:50 child would be autistic. Care to bring a source, Ombi? JFW | T@lk 00:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and delete again Tremendous delete: this category will help readers find important misinformation more easily, and exist primarily to make a point. --CDN99 20:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously good category. I don't think "people shouldn't read those articles, they contain harmful ideas" is a good reason to delete. We don't censor for children, so we shouldn't censor for adults, either. Mirror Vax 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrasing my reasoning: Harmful ideas which promote harmful actions (like neglecting to vaccinate your children) and which are backed up by pseudoscience should not be given the opportunity to be read by anyone at all. Wikipedia needs to be about facts, not nonsense with good intentions, so I change my vote to tremendous delete. --CDN99 21:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Impossible to maintain. Takes time away from contributors that is better spent on the articles themselves. Better to referee what is and isn't a controversy in the articles themselves. There are not enough people in academics to keep a list of contorversies up to date. Better would be for contributors to put something in each article under a heading 'Contorversy'. Then one could do a database search for the heading controversy in articles that are in the medicine category. Having a hard coded article is just bad database design. Kd4ttc 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If some clear NPOV criteria can be defined then maybe it could be kept, but that would still leave the update issues raised above unresolved. Vegaswikian 21:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is no maintenance involved in a category. It is a distinctive group of articles. It would make it easier for editors to see what articles in this area might need work to ensure NPOV, verifiability, etc. There obviously are medical controversies including vaccination, homeopathy, natural medicines - why not categorise like articles?--A Y Arktos 21:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Anything in medicine can be considered a "controversy". Entire branches of medicine--indeed all of Western medicine--is seen as controversial (e.g., Talk:Psychiatry) by some. This is an interesting idea, but it is just too vague of an implementation. There are many who--despite a preponderance of peer-reviewed literature--will still decry certain techniques (e.g., Vaccination). I'm sorry, but this will be abused. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions, and "controversies" are just that. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, inherent POV. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is an inherent problem in defining controversy. While there are genuinely controversial issues within medicine (right-to-die, euthanasia, etc), there are also issues whose controversy arises only from fringe groups (vaccinations, for example, are not controversial within medicine). Also, the NPOV term Alternative medicine covers homeopathy, natural medicines, which also are not actually controversial (scientific consensus is clear on their efficacy in most cases.) Mixing these different subjects lends false balance to fringe opinion. And as to Divine authority, we call that Evidence based medicine--DocJohnny 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments to that effect. Soltak | Talk 23:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Depending on your point of view, controversies in medicine can include from nothing to almost everything. Non-maintainable. --WS 00:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Strong for 4 reasons:
  • Mistitled - these are not controversies within medicine, which (hopefully) being scientific in its development always is asking questions/testing hypothesis/modifying best practice, instead these are a random selection of socio-politocal-media debates deriding the scientific process and evidence base of medicine.
  • A single article on hyped media health stories as a commentary on our society would be interesting, but categorising individual topics adds nothing to WP.
  • The topics covered are very much tiny minority view points. Those who scientifically undertake research (double-blind controlled, statistically significant etc) and are both responsible for & daily have experience of managing patients (i.e. virtually all doctors, public health specialists, government health departments) strongly refute the alleged claims of these articles. To link them as part of some pharmaceutical-government-doctor conspiracy is to give inappropriate creadence & weight.
  • Finally this is the same debate as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical controversies which was deleted.David Ruben ^Talk 01:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting idea, but it would be impossible to maintain. It'd just collect misinformation from anyone with some fringe idea. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC) I should also declare my bias: I am a physician, and more importantly, a believer of science. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the reasons listed when the article of the same name was voted out: (1) the title is dishonest: the topics have nothing in common except doctor-bashing, implicit or explicit, with a low probability that any balanced or accurate info will be made available; (2) the category is a blatant attempt to evade community consensus on exactly the same topic proposal. alteripse 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per article deletion and overcategorization; only two of the member articles are actually controversies. siafu 05:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are so many with a medical monopoly. john 09:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are so many" - you don't actually indicate who or what you are referring to. Do you mean this category should include any "medical monopoly" being challenged by outsiders? That whole concept is POV and cannot possibly be rephrased to suit categorisation. And could you define "medical monopoly"? JFW | T@lk 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are an infinity of minor controversies that could make up a sentence or paragraph in almost every medical article. Effectively – Category: Forests with trees in them. Would you include historical controversies that are now dead? --Colin 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Votes might be interested in reading Half-life of knowledge. I don't think anyone has proposed a half-life of medical knowledge, but it seems that it is likely to be relatively short in some areas. As such, medical controversies will come and go in reality, but this category is never going to be terribly representative.Limegreen 05:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Discussion

comment. Even if "the category exists primarily to make a point" it could serve a useful purpose. Even if some people would like to restrict the term "medical controversies" to disputes that can be resolved by conventional means within science, society as a whole does not make that distinction. Some people hold the point of view that "medical controversies" include topics that are not recognized as being controversial within medical science. I think Wikipedia can make room for coverage of that point of view. It is true that "the inclusion criteria are undefined" for the "medical controversies" category. As a starting point, we could establish objective criteria for determining if a particular medical controversy is notable enough for mention in Wikipedia. For example, if 10 publications exist from professionals (such as medical doctors) that address a particular medical controversy, then maybe that controversy could be mentioned in a Wikipedia article, with an appropriate citation to the most relevant publication about that particular controversy. If there are 50 publications about a particular medical controversy, then there could be an article about that controversy. Articles about a specific medical controversy should obviously be in the category for medical controversies. There could also be a general article for medical controversies that would discuss medical controversies in general terms, such as how they arise and how they are settled. I detect a significant amount of weariness on the part of some Wikipedians who seem to be tired of trying to keep non-notable medical controversies out of Wikipedia and keep non-scientific claims about medical controversies from creeping into Wikipedia. I am sensitive to this problem, but I feel it is a mistake to try to sweep the subject of medical controversies under the rug. I am willing to start a new Wikiproject just for articles about medical controversies within Wikipedia. I propose that the Medical Controversies Wikiproject start with a review of published books and articles about medical controversies. The Medical Controversies Wikiproject could also provide a discussion aimed at deciding on objective criteria for identifying those medical controversies that are notable enough to include in Wikipedia. I propose that this new Wikiproject would work in the spirit of existing efforts to promote verifiability of the content of Wikipedia. The scope of the project would be defined by the existing scholarly literature on medical controversies:

Google Scholar has many results for medical controversy including *Mammography screening for women under 50: women's response to medical controversy and changing practice guidelines

There are many published books that discuss medical controversies such as

• Benefits and Limitations of Mammography

The Entrez Pubmed search engine finds thousands of published articles about medical controversies:

• Applying a research ethics committee approach to a medical practice controversy: the case of the selective COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib
• COX-2 controversy: where are we and where do we go from here?
• Distinguishing between Type I and Type II diabetes is a recognized area of medical controversy
• Antibiotic prophylaxis in severe acute pancreatitis: the never-ending controversy
• UV Radiation, Vitamin D and Human Health: An Unfolding Controversy Introduction
• Workshop summaries: the splenectomy controversy
• The new WHO classification of pituitary tumors: highlights and areas of controversy
• Science, Suffrage, and Experimentation: Mary Putnam Jacobi and the Controversy over Vivisection in Late Nineteenth-Century America
• The vitamin D and sunlight controversy--we will wait and see
• Brazil's AIDS controversy: antiretroviral drugs, breaking patents, and compulsory licensing
• Combination therapy for osteoporosis: considerations and controversy
  • The articles listed above are from the first of well over a hundred pages of articles listed in PubMed that are about medical controversies.

All Wikipedians with an interest in adding content to Wikipedia articles that concerns medical controversies could be asked to participate in the Medical Controversies Wikiproject. Medical controversies that do not have enough scholarly references "on file" at the Medical Controversies Wikiproject pages would be excluded from Wikipedia articles. This would force Wikipedians to participate in a scholarly analysis of the literature before adding discussion of medical controversies to Wikipedia articles. --JWSchmidt 05:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, the main concern is that this category will be hijacked by the anti-mainstream medicine crowd, as has already been done. I don't think medical controversies can be seen seperate from medicine, and a seperate WikiProject would create the impression that controversy is a seperate thing, which it isn't. Every situation where there are multiple views can be called "controversy" without a stretch, as per your examples above. There is hardly a medical condition that does not have an area where the evidence stops and controversy starts. Does that mean every single condition needs inclusion in this category? JFW | T@lk 09:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no better illustration of the real purpose and probable content of this category than the comment from john that follows JFW's initial explanation of why to delete (above). Can a mindset like this be "forced to participate in a scholarly analysis of the literature before adding discussion"? alteripse 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted john's comment, because it was not a vote and meant as a personal attack by using the term "allopath" in a derogatory sense. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are worried that "medical controversies" is not a "seperate thing" and that a category for "medical controversies" will "create the impression that controversy is a seperate thing" then the solution would be to place a statement to that effect at the top of the "medical controversies" category page and explain your position fully (with citations to authorities that hold this view) in the main Wikipedia article about medical controversies. Categories are used for the convenience of organizing information and helping Wikipedia users find information. I do not believe that a category for "medical controversies" that might come to hold maybe a half dozen articles will cause the medical portion of Wikipedia to crumble. In my view, the proposal I made (above) would prevent a "medical controversies" category from being "hijacked". If Wikipedia articles about any particular medical controversy were restricted to controversies for which the Medical Controversies Wikiproject could find 50 legitimate publications by professionals dealing with that controversy and if such articles were heavily focused on those publications (as they should be) I do not think the effort could be "hijacked". I'm trying to find a way of establishing rules that will allow Wikipedians who are interested in "medical controversies" to express their points of view in a fair way. My hunch is that the best way to deal with this is to tackle it directly and openly in an organized way. Wikipedia needs to find ways of constructively engaging people who might otherwise be disruptive. We have the duty to find a way for Wikipedia to deal with the reality of "medical controversies". If we do this right, it will not be "hijacked".

"Does that mean every single condition needs inclusion in this category?" My proposal suggests that Wikipedia should set criteria for determination of the significance of "medical controversies". This means that NOT every Wikipedia article about a condition will even mention controversies. I suggested that it be required that if there are between 10-50 legitimate publications about a particular medical controversy then that controversy could be mentioned in an appropriate Wikipedia article. Such "mention" could be in the form of a single sentence with a single reference or it might take the form of a section of an article that describes the controversy and cites several references. I suggested that only "medical controversies" for which at least 50 legitimate publications can be found would qualify to have their own Wikipedia article and a place in the medical controversies category. Those numbers (10, 50) were just guesses based on my review of the literature and the number of published books and articles that deal with medical controversies (this seems to be a total of about 2,000 publications). I'm thinking that Wikipedia could aim to have articles for about the top 5 medical controversies....in other words, my guess is that maybe there are about 5 medical controversies for which it will be possible to find 50 legitimate publications by professionals dealing with that particular controversy.

Can a mindset like this be "forced to participate in a scholarly analysis of the literature before adding discussion"? This is obviously a legitimate question, but I think it is our duty to promote scholarly analysis and balance presentation of multiple points of view. Some people are unable to work collaboratively and compromise- they get banned from Wikipedia all the time. Some people are able to learn how to see other people's points of view and they can learn to collaborate and compromise. In my view, Wikipedians must try to make collaboration and compromise work or else the whole project is going to degenerate into some kind of smoldering war ground where the largest and loudest armies rule and minority points of view are not expressed. --JWSchmidt 16:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather long way say something, I presume it is a keep. What this commentary shows is 1) There are better ways to look up controversies (a simple google or medline search) based on a database approach (one of my comments in my vote) and 2) that if there is to be an article on medical controversies it would be better to have an article on what constitutes a medical controversy and how to look up the literature on medical, and scientific, controversy. Still a DELETE Kd4ttc 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well expressed, I would support such an article, as it would consider the medicine-skeptic, medicine-alternative, medicine-media debates that always seem to occur around such topics (worthy of WP as sociological commentary). As consequence of discussion within such an article, links could be made to any relevant articles within WP, but better would be external links (& hence to society at large). re this Category (still POV title etc. as per comments with original vote) and so still a Delete. David Ruben ^Talk 13:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for controversial medical techniques and procedures would be good, but in absence of such a category, I vote to keep this one. For those of us who are scientists and not pseudoscientists, charlatans, or religious moralists, we know how to keep something scientific without allowing false self-proclaimed "debate" (like the so-called "debate" over evolution that really isn't) to infiltrate such a category. We can also prevent such a category from becoming a single user's personal playground, which is I think one of the concerns somebody raised above. I would very strongly advocate keeping this category, because at present there is nothing else close to it on Wikipedia. 71.246.77.58 07:51, 12 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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:Georgetown University alumni --Kbdank71 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno if there is a standard for alumni categories but most seem to be in the form University alumni. MeltBanana 18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't it be "Georgetown University alumni" then? Alumni is a better name since a dropout is also a former student. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes probably although Category:Georgetown alumni has several articles already. MeltBanana 02:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Radiant; Georgetown was once a place name (not just the university name). siafu 05:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to a name that does not include several schools. If we made the suggested change then it would also include Georgetown College alumni. If we want to rename then Category:Georgetown University alumni, as suggested above, might be workable. If the rename happens to this, then also Merge Category:Georgetown alumni's contents into Category:Georgetown University alumni with the possible exception of Vespoli where the company owner is the alunmnus and not the company. Vegaswikian 19:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Georgetown University alumni older≠wiser 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Georgetown University alumni. --Mairi 00:42, 10 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 16:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(was "Category:Wikipedians by philosophy, Category:Wikipedians by religion, Category:Wikipedians by sporting team (support), Category:Wikipedians by politics and all related subcategories" - renamed section for easier linking) -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating all the POV wikipedian categories as detrimental to building an encyclopedia, and a violation of WP:NPOV.

It is of course legitimate to declare your POV on your userpage (with a userbox if you must). Indeed arguably, since bias declared helps to avoid hidden agendas, it may help build an NPOV encyclopedia.

However, grouping wikipedians by POV is unhelpful. It encourages factionalism, but worse it allows the identification of like-minded people to support your POV (or vote on your issue).

I have no objection to grouping people by interest and specialist knowledge - that can be useful in finding appropriate people to comment on an article. So we should have cats for 'wikipedians by location', or 'wikipedians interested in the politics of nation x' 'wikipedians interested in Christian theology/Judaism or whatever (regardless of their own beliefs) 'wikipedians interested in the abortion debate/ gender-sexuality issues' etc. However, these POV categories are detrimental to the aim of the encyclopedia and should go. --Doc ^ask? 17:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reflect on this before voting (from the politics cat): Just a comment from Jimbo: I would like to discourage the use of these and similar templates on user pages, instead encourage people to adopt an attitude of 'Here we are Wikipedians, out there we are advocates'. The point is, we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral.--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep see no big problem. It's been around for awhile and the sky has not fallen yet. I disagree with Jimbo on this one. He's not alwaysright after all.Gator (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not right that this was voted Keep less than a month ago and yet we're right back at it. Just need to accept the vote a little longer than this. Please withdraw this nom for now.Gator (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No (respectfully) --Doc ^ask? 18:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the point in voting if it'll just be brought back again and again until the "right" result is obtained? Why did you feel this needed to be brougth up again so soon? Jimbo? Respectfully,Gator (talk) 18:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of doctrine that Jimbo is always right. See m:Foundation issues. -Splash^talk 18:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Let him come and delete the category then if he wants to so bad. Until then, then I vote keep.Gator (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Please note that Category:Wikipedians by politics survived a CfD less than a month ago. Also, there is a big difference between discourage and prohibit. --StuffOfInterest 17:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Biases exist in people whether they are identified publicly or not. The measure of a good editor is that he/she makes NPOV edits despite that bias, rather than pretending that they have no bias. You can read the previous recent nomination of some of these categories here. NoSeptember ^talk 17:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and extreme delete. Knowing the biases of individual users is helpful. Grouping them all by category is not. It's the best way to recruit fellow soldiers in a Wikiwar. I think this sort of categorisation is very dangerous and has already caused a few conflicts. I really don't see a need for it. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a social club where you can meet others with the same beliefs as yourself. That sort of thing is already covered in places such as meetup dot com. --Deathphoenix 17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per the quote from Jimbo above. - TexasAndroid 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having biases is natural, being able to put them aside when on Wikipedia is important, and wearing them as a badge is divisive and poisonous to our community. --Improv 18:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the nominator can convince me that being a Red Sox fan relates somehow to my POV in editing the Wikipedia. There are (IMO) user boxes that are less neutral, politically speaking, but these should be considered for deletion on an individual basis, not wholesale deletion of entire catagories of WP users and editors.Hamster Sandwich 18:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the sports category is the weakest part of my case, but actually your question is beside the point. We are writing an encyclopedia, so you tell me how grouping Red Sox fans helps do that. --Doc ^ask? 19:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Identifying yourself with a particular view or group doesn't make you part of a hive mind. Conversely, if you're not independent and objective, the absence of labels won't really help.
  

I say let anyone call themselves whatever they want. The user pages are mostly for fun anyhow.Bjones 18:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete these, as frivolous and completely beside the point of building an encyclopedia. And bravo to Doc for showing respect for the consensus process and actually doing the right thing and listing these here, rather than just going off half-cocked and generally making things worse. Doc should get cookies. Certain other unnamed admins should get overcooked spinach. Nandesuka 19:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me how he is showing respect for the consensus process when this was decided less than a month ago in CFD and he's bringin it up again so soon? I'm at a loss...and I love spinach :)Gator (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spinach cookies all round then. There was only one of these nominated before - and I was ignorant of that until now. But I'm nominating all of these on a point of principle, and it makes no sense to withdraw one bit of the nomination in view of a previous process. These are POV and ought to be deleted - a previous decision does not change that fact. --Doc ^ask? 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is still a discussion about all this going on. There is nothing wrong with the identification of your bias. KittenKlub 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of bias is not a problem - grouping people by bias is. --Doc ^ask? 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a still a long discussion going on about the user boxes and it's very premature to start deleting and marking things immediately. We now have 4 deletion votes scattered around Wikipedia. And there was already a decision before about the categories. KittenKlub 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am inclined to vote delete, but my issue is not with these categories (which have been voted to be kept on several occasions), but with bundling these categories with userbox templates. If people really want to join these categories then fine, let them add the category link at the bottom of their user page. But subliminally putting an automatic category within the userbox code means that users are (unknowingly) putting their names into what is effectively a wiki-mailing list. CATEGORIES LIKE THESE SHOULD NOT BE LINKED TO USERBOXES. Deano (Talk) 20:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Happy community-building cruft. Stuff like this encourages people to have a sense of "home" and "community." It's at least as pointless but warm-fuzzy-feeling-causing as any number of other things that go on around here on user pages. I would support a new naming policy or even namespace policy for categories, though; it is very confusing to have article categories and talk page categories and user page categories and Wikipedia policy categories and so on, especially when people get confused about the purpose of those categories and include different types of pages together in a category. For example, awhile back I think Category:Wikipedia administrators shifted purpose completely from listing all Wikipedia administrators to listing policy pages related to Wikipedia administration. Or maybe it was the other way around. See how confusing it was? :) This could've been avoided if there were separate "second-class" categories for categorizing pages in the User: namespace and the Wikipedia: namespace, and this would also avoid having those categories confused with the categories that are truly important: those that pertain to articles. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt the earth. Per Jimbo and Deathphoenix. David | Talk 20:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Previous CFD here. I note that it closed with a community consensus of keep two days before Jimbo commented. Comments about the vote-spam: this blew my mind and really angered me when I first saw it. I've blocked two people for it (three if you count one sockpuppet of #1). Like most other vandals, such folks ought to be warned and then kicked off. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. However, can we delete deletionists? Rogue 9 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Why are we wasting time appeasing someone with deletionist tendencies? What exactly is wrong with people wanting to identify their likes and dislikes so long as they keep it civil? Besides, only ARTICLES need be NPOV, not absolutely everything else too. E. Sn0 =31337= 21:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Historical perspective Long before categories ever existed, there was Wikipedia:Wikipedians, which encouraged Wikipedians to list themselves by location, by high school, by pet (for crying out loud!), by religion, by interest in Punk music, and even by D&D alignment. Someone realized this was unwieldy and created the vastly popular Wikipedia:User categorisation project, using the then-new category system to replace all these crazy lists. Since then far more trivial classifications than the original page have been devised, along with far more significant ones. If there's any kind of decision to be made here, I think the community should work with the user categorisation project to decide exactly which categorisations are and are not acceptable. For myself, classification as a libertarian and a Christian is not anything insidious; it's just a means to say, "Hey; I'm not the only libertarian (or Christian, or Perl programmer) on Wikipedia" and carries about the same significance as, "Hey; I'm not the only Texan on Wikipedia." Is it frivolous? For sure! But the various lists of Wikipedia:Wikipedians were at least as frivolous. It keeps people happy here, and that's important if we don't want to lose editors. Could we build an encyclopedia without it? Sure. But would it be as fun? Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Undermines the neutrality policy. People should be trying to make their biases undetectable rather than be parading them. Honbicot 21:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. The neutrality policy says that articles must be neutral. As for hiding biases, all that means is that people will organize by bias somewhere other than out in the open, which is much worse as it's harder to counteract. Rogue 9 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like having my biases declared in order to invite people to POV check me. I sure don't claim to be above making POV mistakes. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacious argument - making biases undetectable does not make them go away. Sweeping them under the rug simply makes POV-pushing/ballot-box stuffing harder to detect. I'm undecided on the proposal to delete them, but this doesn't strike me as a reasonable argument against them. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Doc, your original Deletion notices on the category pages fail to link properly now that this section has been consolidated/renamed. I'm going to try to fix them, but thought you should know. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• One more comment Please don't allow this CFD to subvert the far more significant (and related) discussion going on at Wikipedia:Proposed policy on userboxes. It seems to me this discussion ought to be subsumed there. (And let's remember that this is a discussion, not a vote. :) ). Also, my thanks to whoever renamed this. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 22:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I choose not to use the categories mentioned above. However, Wikipedia has become a community, and communities tend to group by similar ideology. I'm sure these have caused problems in the past, but they do make it easy to see when someone is "pulling in support" for POV edits. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of this needless nonsense. We're writing an encyclopedia, not forming a social club. Soltak | Talk 22:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the previous recent vote on the same issue. Valiantis 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is already being discussed elsewhere, let's not try to delete it on the side here. There are several subcats in there that don't seem to fit this nomination reasons, such as Category:Mathematician Wikipedians, Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, and Category:Deletionist Wikipedians, if these subcats would be deleted as a result of this deletion, then my vote is EXTREMELY STRONG *KEEP*. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Freedom of speech and all, plus these are potentially quite useful, e.g. to find potential participants in a WikiProject on a specific philosophy or religion. ~~ N (t/c) 02:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I still see no defensible arguments to keep. These categories are a gift to pushers of points of view, and really no more use to anyone else. If I want to say that I'm a bigendian on my user page, I can do so. I don't need a category easily enabling other, perhaps less scrupulous, bigendians to network in attempts to promote bigendianism or pursue other unencyclopedic aims. If those chaps want to subvert Wikipedia's consensus and neutrality policies, I'll be ready for them, but in the meantime I won't be giving them a handy tool to use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I do have reservations. I have not counted myself as a Catholic Wikipedian because I've encountered people who decide that immediately makes you bias and suspect. I worry categorizing yourself this way is maybe inviting people to see you as biased. However if I am writing an article on say Quakers, which I've done, it might be useful to me to have the Category:Quaker Wikipedians here. Not that they'll be automatically right, but they might in least know things I don't. In fact I did contact people at Category:Bahá'í Wikipedians in resolving a dispute about messiahs from months back.--T. Anthony 03:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I hesitated to vote on such a contentious issue but T. Anthony made me realize I am immediately suspicious of groups such as Catholics, Republicans, etc. I vote delete to protect those who are easily offended by issues such as this and to prevent heavily point-of-view Wikipedians from using such categories to their own devices. KramarDanIkabu 03:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As the originator of Category:Wikipedians by sporting team (support) I just want to explain how it came into being. I was creating userboxes for sporting team supporters and wanted somewhere to put them, rather than leave them as orphans. I didn't see the point of creating a "List of ..." page and being relatively new to Wikipedia, I looked in Wikipedia:Wikipedians and saw various similar categories. I concluded that creating another one would be acceptable. As for my original motivation for creating the category, all of the userboxes are listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Rugby Union, so they would not be orphaned if the category was deleted.

If this category is deleted, shouldn’t others like it be deleted too in the interests of fairness, for example Category:Wikipedians by sport (playing) and Category:Sports fans on Wikipedia? Or are we only interested in deleting userbox linked categories?

Myself I have been contemplating whether Category:Wikipedians by sporting team (support) and the like are a wise way to use the resources of Wikipedia, but I have not come to a conclusion yet. I think we need to strike a balance between writing an encyclopaedia and creating a community.

- Blarneytherinosaur 07:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to delete Categories of Wikipedians I'd think we should maybe go with Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo and the newly created Category:Wikipedians who do not trust Jimbo.--T. Anthony 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. People should be free to categorize themselves as they want to since I see no harm in having these. Saying that everyone should be neutral and unbiased is understandable but unrealistic, and the second best is if they will openly declare their opinions. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nominator; I view this as a compromise: we keep the user boxes, but we lose the categorization of Wikipedians (which is the more harmful aspect of these userboxes). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as proposed, keep the user boxes, and speedy delete any new such categories. -- Ze miguel 11:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is not one of the functions of wikipedia. CalJW 12:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Locke Cole and Ze miguel. These categories are a needless drain of server resources (category views are hard on the database), not to mention non-NPOV. They're also redundant, since anyone who really wants to see who has a particular userbox can just look at Special:Whatlinkshere. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Users should be able to self-categorize in any positive way. The strawman argument about voting blocs indicates a problem with the fake "consensus" represented by the low-visibilty meta-pages used by hard-core Wikipedians to decide issues of deletion, etc. Most editors never see them or take a second look at them, so the real problem is all the people who aren't voting for these things, not the potential for a group of like-minded editors to skew a skewed process even more. Mike Dillon 15:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Userboxes are harmless, but automatically grouping people in categories like these (POV) is not. It can lead to POV attacks, and other problems. We don't need categories like these - they dont act as sources of information such as categories about users who are admins or those who can use html to a high level - «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» ^{Talk | Contrib's} 18:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep If Wikipedians want to categorize themselves, they're going to do it. If users don't want to categorize themselves, they don't have to. This belief that users somehow need to be protected from themselves is both condescending and impractical. If this motion somehow succeeds, I intend to put all of my affiliations on my User page regardless. Palm_Dogg 21:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep let people categorize themselves if they wish. I haven't seen any evidence of people massing themselves for edit wars using user categories. Please show some. Even so, unless the problem is very significant, people should still be able to categorize themselves. Also, even sporting teams and religion are nominated. I don't see sporting teams as a problem. Religions could be, but so what.--Bkwillwm 06:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep so long as all category names include Wikipedian or User in their title and are only categorized within Wikipedian/User category trees. Joshbaumgartner 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I have a strong opinion on this but it's probably wrong. Ashibaka tock 02:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, these are useful when looking for an 'expert' on a topic, and also help create a community feeling. As long as the user cats stay disjoint from the article cats, they won't directly interfere with the encyclopedia, and the only effects will be via other users. I think the good (finding experts) outweighs the bad (jumping to conclusions about people). SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 1. Only by being transparent with your biases, can we truly reach NPOV without having to guess what the other person is trying to do. Furthermore, being a (theoretically trained, to some degree) communist is also "specialist knowledge", no less than someon from a religion or a country. I can't see how people from South Korea would try to support each other's pro-SK views by having a centralized place to list current events (re: Regional postings board) while communists are not allowed to. --Yonghokim 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. NPOV means "neutral point of view", not "no point of view". Lucidish 16:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (again!) My opinions haven't changed since the last deletion notice. | QzDaddy 03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: I've just had a message on my userpage which essentially stems from one of my userboxes, and not necessarily from the type of article I generally create. For those of us such as myself, who necessarily stick with one topic on Wikipedia at any one time, without using words, letting people know what we're interested in is essential. Bobo192. 07:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one more time. And please, next time better discuss instead of proposing anything for deletion. I basically see proposals for deletion as an extreme method, let's instead talk. We are a community, aren't we? --Angelo 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a discussion, as are all deletion nominations. I suggested these should be deleted, giving my reasons, and now the community discusses, trying to reach a consenus. Perhaps you would like to contribute by discussing the substance of the issues, which I raised in my nomination, rather than just casting a 'vote' as you have done. --Doc ^ask? 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your points have been dealt with though by others. For example factionalism is a bit false as no religion or political position is monolithic. To take an example Category:Sunni Wikipedians just says they are Sunnis. Sunnis have various schools of Islamic interpretation. It doesn't say there who is more drawn to the Malikites and who is more drawn to the Hanafi or how much so. There's also the issue of cultural influences. A Sunni from East Africa likely has a very different view then one from Southeast Asia. The idea isn't totally invalid, but factionalism could also occur in Wikipedians by nationality or interest or anything. For example people from the US and people from China tend to be much more proud of their nation then people from elsewhere are. Likewise people who are interested in say a certain TV show could factionalize against the show that replaced it. If all categories of every kind were erased it could be different. The way it is it implies that sports, politics, and religion make you more cliquish/untrustworthy than most things. I don't know if this is true at all and considering the force of nationalism in history I'm skeptical of the notion.--T. Anthony 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I casted my vote just because I think these categories would remain available on Wikipedia. My regret is to have seen today about the second request for deletion about most of these categories in recent times, after the first failed. That's why I claim to discuss about the issue somewhere else, instead of continuously submitting requests for deletions. --Angelo 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I want to be a furry Wikipedian!!! But, what does that mean? When I find out, can I write an article on it? In the meantime, don't be so serious. Being a Wikipedian means having fun, while contributing to the greater good. We're not ants you know, nor worker bees. Go for it! 04:47, 12 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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:Polish Academy of Learning --Kbdank71 16:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Category:PAN below.--nixie 14:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You'll need to do create the members category yourself I should think. This page isn't for asking other people to subdivide categories. Honbicot 21:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good idea, ((sofixit)). And also, avoid abbrev. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Polish Academy of Learning and be bold on the second one. siafu 05:36, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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:Polish Academy of Sciences --Kbdank71 16:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acronym, for Polish Academy of Sciences, suggest creating Category:Polish Academy of Sciences for associated institutions and Category:Members of the Polish Academy of Sciences for members.--nixie 14:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You'll need to do create the members category yourself I should think. This page isn't for asking other people to subdivide categories. Honbicot 21:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good idea, ((sofixit)). And also, avoid abbrev. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above CfR. siafu 05:40, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 Speedied at sole contribs request --Doc ^ask? 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the title, there is missing an "n" in the "Aligment". Suggest speedy rename. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest delete this utterly pointless category. David | Talk 15:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Speedy Rename. We shouldn't delete one subcategory when there is a CfD for the entire group of categories above. NoSeptember ^talk 17:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (why not, the cats above may well survive - but this crap doesn't have to share the same fate) --Doc ^ask? 18:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, is this about D&D alignment again? Most Wikipedians are undecided, and once they know they can use one of those. If kept by the way, "alignment" should not be capitalized as it's not a proper noun. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needless nonsense. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as the only editor of the category, have blanked it, corrected inbound links, and tagged for SD. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 02:01, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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:Human-computer interaction notables --Kbdank71 16:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relatively meaningless acronym, for a rather subjective category. Would suggest renaming or deletion.--nixie 12:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral:The acronym is far from meaningless (Google gives nearly a million results for HCI "Human-computer interacion"). However, the name is less than ideal. Perhaps Category:Human-computer interface researchers? Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, avoid abbrev. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Semiconscious; avoid abbreviations, and obviously they're notable or they wouldn't have articles. Also, the I looks rather like an l, so the first thing that shot into my mind was hydro-chloric acid. siafu 05:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I thought the same thing. Semiconscious (talk · home) 19:06, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 15:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image (Image:Rhogov-flag.jpg) has been superceded by a better quality image (Image:Rho-gov.gif), and the sites that linked to the old image have now all been redirected to the new. Expatkiwi 06:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, what? We have a category named "image" now? Delete please, redundant with better-named cats. Radiant_>|< 22:30, 4 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 redir --Kbdank71 15:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a duplicate of the categories "Schools" and/or "Education" and it redirects to the former. I've depopulated it. Now it can be deleted so its link should appear as red. Adam78 02:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems like a reasonable category. Make it a subcat of Category:Education, and make Category:Schools a subcat of Category:School. Mirror Vax 09:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No, let's simply cat redir this to Category:Schools to prevent confusion. Radiant_>|< 11:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Radiant. Keeping the category independent is nonsensical. Soltak | Talk 22:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Radiant; Category:Education already covers the general topics. siafu 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Radiant!. Vegaswikian 07:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Radiant. -- SCZenz 18:05, 6 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid abbreviations/acronyms. Rename KramarDanIkabu 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Though the full name isn't much clearer unless you know the subject area (whatever that is). Honbicot 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for rename as per nomination. Semiconscious (talk · home) 22:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 05:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. People who ARE interested in the subject area, specifically college (American) football, will almost certainly know what "BCS" means in that context. — Dale Arnett 05:17, 7 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 15:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been around for six months and it contains one article (which has other categories). Not necessarily inappropriate but it shows no sign of achieving traction. It can only really be placed directly in Category:History of the United States, which has an intimidating number of subcategories, most of which contain hundreds of articles. In the circumstances this is clutter. Delete Sumahoy 00:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Perfectly good category. It's not a member of Category:New England as it should be, which may account for its lack of popularity. Mirror Vax 09:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If this is an almost empty category it's a glitch, isn't it? An incredibly large number of US historical events took place in New England. Benami 11:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It has been in a very prominent category and almost no-one has used it. This suggests that the categories for states are sufficient. Honbicot 21:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A number of historically significant events occured in New England and the category is warranted. Adding it as a subcat of Category:New England should increase its use. Soltak | Talk 22:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The region is very commonly identified as such, and there exist many articles on the history of New England in its various forms. Arguably a good parent for Category:History of Vermont, Category:History of New Hampshire, etc. siafu 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete None of the people who have voted keep it have added any articles to it. It may be theoretically useful, but it is not actually used. CalJW 12:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was just added to Category:New England yesterday. It's presence there should increase its use. If it doesn't, I'll be happy to vote delete next time around. Soltak | Talk 17:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some of the relevant Wikipedia articles to the category, there are others that could also be added. --JWSchmidt 18:13, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason this hasn't already been changed in line with policy is that it wasn't in Category:American people by occupation

• Rename. Sumahoy 00:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename, Speedy. - Darwinek 09:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the others. Honbicot 21:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename There can't be many occupational categories which don't already exist in the correct form. CalJW 12:33, 5 January 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 of the proposed deletion of 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally there was just the trust one, but now there is both which does give balance. Still the feelings of Wikipedians about one guy should be a bit more outlandish than their feelings about religion or politics or sports. I also can't see how this has any usefulness for any article. Plus it's only on the main Wikipedian page rather than being in least put it in out of the way part of "by philosophy" or "by interest" or whatever. Lastly the talkpage expressed the idea it's more of a bumper sticker than a valid categorization.--T. Anthony 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. I created this category, and the associated userbox, because I was frustrated with all the second-guessing Jimbo was getting a few weeks ago. I felt like trusting Jimbo should be common, but wasn't, so I figured I'd come out and say it. It's in the category it's in because trusting Jimbo is central to running to the encyclopedia. But it's pretty darn silly, I admit, so delete it if you like. -- 04:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I take my neutral vote back. I think trusting Jimbo is central to our encyclopedia, and I don't see what's wrong with this category. If you don't like where it is, you could have moved it rather than deleting it, but I'm not sure I even disagree with you on that. All Wikipedian self-categorization is "bumper stickers"--why are you singling this one out? -- SCZenz 05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's dumb. Jimbo isn't defacto dictator. He's not even a President, I don't recall voting for him. Nor is he Santa Claus watching every article 24/7 to see who is naughty or nice. If trusting this one individual is really that central than this is just some enormous ego-trip for one guy. I'm actually not sure I trust him or even like him, or dislike or distrust him, as I've never even met the guy. From what I've read here and elsewhere I'm not impressed, but I'm for removing the whole question. I mean what's next pledges of Wikipedia allegiance, oaths against anti-Wikipedianism? Lastly there isn't enough Jimbo related articles that we need to consult Jimbo believers about the tenets of Jimboism.--T. Anthony 05:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that's the point. This isn't for discussion of issues, it's just a statement of what I think. That's pretty common among userboxes/categories like this, which were accepted practice (until recently (?)). It's also not rammed down anyone's throat. But, FYI, Jimbo is the head of the Wikimedia Foundation, and all its decisions are final. Did you know that? -- SCZenz 18:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See m:Foundation Issues if you don't believe the sentence about his decisions being final. -- SCZenz 18:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that doesn't surprise me. Still I don't think it's necessary, when working on an encyclopedia, to say whether you trust or distrust the Foundation that runs it. I know of cases where people don't like or trust their boss, but they still work at the place because they think the project is worthwhile. I admit I'm not real comfortable though thinking that there is a boss who I am now under in some sense, especially as I don't get paid for working on this, so I'll have to think on what this means for my future participation.--T. Anthony 21:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You've still made no sargument for deleting this except that you disagree with my opinion. -- SCZenz 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • What do you mean? I don't see the usefulness of this and was quite clear on that. In fact I was never unclear on that. I don't see how knowing whether someone trusts one guy indicates anything useful about their ability to do articles. I think you indicate it does because he's "the boss", but on most articles he's not personally involved or is so only minimally so his bossness isn't that important. Although no one has to put this on their page having it indicates clearly that this one guy is still uber-important and that brown-nosing or rebelling to him is important to the project. I think that's a bad idea. I also think that outside of that it doesn't say anything useful. Category:Mennonite Wikipedians could be useful if you need information on Mennonitism. There's few to no cases where knowing the person's views on Jimbo is useful or important. It's essentially like Category:Wikipedians who trust their employer would be, namely of limited utility.--T. Anthony 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per SCZenz. (I created the balancing category, though it may be, you know, slightly tongue-in-cheek.) Deltabeignet 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Neutral. I just remembered why I made the category in the first place. Deltabeignet 05:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. With the understanding that my category will be preserved for posterity. Deltabeignet 22:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, just like my response above regarding user boxes. However will go on comment to say that I think it is odd that people feel need to proclaim their "trust" (to what end?) for Mr. Wales. He has created a fascinating thing here with Wikipedia, but that does not make his voice any more or less important than any other. Wasn't there something about people wanting a King George Washington after the American Revolution? Semiconscious (talk · home) 10:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. You think it's dumb, I think it's great. ~~ N (t/c) 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ayn Rand is a weenie is funny, hehe. Эйрон Кинни 20:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he's not just "a guy" --Angelo 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - this seems irrelevant to building an encyclopedia, even beyond the usual userboxen. -- nae'blis _(talk) 23:09, 9 January 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.