Category talk:Controversies
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Lquilter in topic scope of this category
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Deletion and recreation
editI thought this category was deleted. Why was it deleted and why was it recreated? --Jagz 15:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know the history properly, but the category was involved in a July 2007 CfD discussion of Category:Debates which I initiated; I found after doing so that there had also been a much earlier (Jan 2006) discussion of Category:Debates. Hope that illuminates.Dsp13 20:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I also remember proposing this category for CfD at some point - the only reason I have it on my watchlist. I can't recall the result, but I'm pretty sure it was "keep" (and the dude abides...). Dahn 22:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
editThere was a discussion. The result was: Keep. Stefanomione 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Didn't someone delete it? See [1] --Jagz 17:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
scope of this category
edit- It seems to me like one could usefully distinguish between "controversies" -- i.e., specific controversies, like incidents of fraud or scandals -- and "controversial topcis", like "abortion", "animal rights", "race and intelligence". I would argue for reserving this category, Category:Controversies, only for the former (synonymous perhaps with "controversial incidents"), and creating some new category (if warranted) to include all those "controversial topics". That would help in diffusion. Because otherwise, honestly, everything could fit in here. History. Science. Ethics. There is no field of human knowledge or endeavor that is not a "controversial topic". --Lquilter (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)