Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Thinking

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy close - KEEP, whilst I appreciate the nominator had good intentions, the nomination is in bad faith. Process should never be held to be more important than content. We should always focus on the content. Issues regarding the portal name can be hashed out on the portal talk page or througfh the correct procedural page, WP:MOVE. Hiding Talk 15:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Thinking

It appears the portal has never gone through the portal approval process. -- Koffieyahoo 00:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's a portal approval process? Where's that? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Portal/Proposals -- Koffieyahoo 07:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  (No vote) Thanks for the reply. This appears to be a functional page, and is perhaps becmoing a de facto standard (?), but we do not appear to have any current Wikipedia:Portal policy's requiring's its use. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Portal approval process counter to Wikipedia's aims? Discussion opened. SilkTork 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  If that is the entire reason behind this nomination, strong keep. Please don't tell others how not to waste their time, you're wasing yours. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• STRONG SPEEDY KEEP - True, there is no official policy requiring the use of the portal approval process (I just checked). The approval procedures were merely slapped on to the Wikipedia:Portal project with very little discussion or consensus-building at all. I didn't even know about it -- I was completely unaware that the "approval process" existed until this deletion notice appeared on this portal! So what do we do now? The portal is already complete, and is of high quality. I think we need to decide whether or not it is good enough to keep. The nominator, without regard to the merits or demerits of the portal itself, has objected to the portal solely on the grounds that it was created via the good old fashioned on-the-fly method used for all Wikipedia articles. Portal:Thinking is both informative and nicely done. It follows the model used for most other portals, is a good lead-in to a mainstream subject, spotlights some quality articles and provides plenty of links. Even Einstein is on there, the greatest thinker of all time. Did you know Wikipedia has an article specifically about Einstein's brain? I'm not kidding, someone stole his brain! (And has been doling out slices of it to researchers to study ever since). There's a link to it on the portal. Once you have a look at the portal, I think you will agree that it is an excellent start, and a very good vantage point from which to make it even better. Please support this portal, and vote to keep it. Thank you. --Transhumanist 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment my nomination was purely bureaucratic in its nature, so I'm not voting here. However, I do like to comment on the example: it's completely off mark. The article on Eistein's brain was created out of the Einstein article, as the section on it was becoming too large and the article is easily reachable from the Eistein article. -- Koffieyahoo 00:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Portal:Thought. bd2412 T 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Keep the name: "Thinking" better conveys the sense of thought as an ongoing activity, in my humble opinion. "Thought" is too general, as it is a synonym for knowledge, as in "philosophical thought", "scientific thought", "thought concerning mongrels", "thoughts on crocheting", etc. "Thinking" emphasizes the cognitive processes, the very methods used in the act of thinking, rather than denoting the content as "thought" does. Thinking is an activity, while thought is the activity plus the content, and is thus too general. The portal focuses on the former, not the latter. --Transhumanist 15:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Rename to Portal:Cognition. -Quiddity 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Keep the name: What's the verb form of Cognition? Cogitate? Who "cogitates"? Cognition is a thing, whereas thinking is an activity. And it's the activity of thinking that the portal focuses on. "Cognition" just doesn't capture the essence of thought as a process the way "thinking" does. --Transhumanist 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment. The "Leaders in thinking" section of that list is intrinsically pov; hence i shall remove it. -Quiddity 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rush/force it through the approval process/page. I think the process is important as it gives a simple way to obtain many comments from others, and an instant "many eyes, make light work" environment. (which is possibly the purpose behind putting it up for MfD here. The D stands for discussion as much as deletion...) -Quiddity 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: I transposed this discussion to the portal approval process page for exactly these reasons. Looks like we are on the same wavelength. Thanks for the input. I'll change the "Leaders in thinking" to "Scholars on methods of thinking", which is much more specific and on topic. --Transhumanist 18:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  I was partially concerned over the size the section would need to become to not be POV. You've got to include everyone from psychologists to philosophers to teachers to novelists for it to be complete; From Timothy Leary and Robert Anton Wilson, to Aldous Huxley and B F Skinner. However, It is potentially workable, I'm not dead set against it at all :)
  Partially, I'm also just startled by the size of the entire "Topics related to Thinking" section at the bottom. As much as I love a good ordered list, that's getting quite unwieldy. I'm going to tangent and overgeneralize (sorry), but I'll compare it to this other oversize list at Nootropic#Related pages, which i suspect you had a hand in, and suggest you might be a list-addict ;-P (me too). I'm unsure what to suggest, as I love all the possibilities (being a fan of mindmaps and infographics etc), but feel that these are just too large for the present wiki-software to present in a concise manner. Eventually we'll have something like the liveplasma web-map autogenerate, but not this year ;) -Quiddity 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• There's an older Portal:Mind and Brain that seems to cover a lot of the same topics. Perhaps the two should be combined somehow? Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

  That portal showcases the mind/brain dichotomy of philosophy and science pertaining to the structure of intelligence, juxtaposing the abstract philosophical approach and its metaphysical explanations of intelligence against the scientific approach of describing intelligence in terms of the observable or measurable behavior of the physical brain and its components. As such, that portal is already large enough on its own. The new portal on Thinking deals primarily with mental activity, that is, how to use your brain with less emphasis on what the brain is made of. Combining the two portals would unnecessarily water the two subject areas down. And it would ruin the mind/brain portal by detracting from its dichotomy theme without giving enough coverage to thinking. --Transhumanist 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep : it is one of the most best portals in Wikipedia ... it is a Crime to delete it .--Chaos 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Above discussion shows plenty of interest to improve this, no need (and little justification) to delete. Martinp 02:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very well nice Work. i,like this stuff so much! Don't delet it --Qaridarium 05:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with Portal:Mind and Brain. On Portal:Thinking, I find through a spot check that the news hasn't been updated since portal creation. Portal:Mind and Brain has been around much longer, but appears poorly maintained. Combining the two would be best, to hopefully have one well-maintained portal. --Aude (talk contribs) 05:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Build it and they will come. "Portal approval process"? Good grief. Is there also a Wikiproject approval process? Where do we draw the line in the bureaucratic control freakery? One of the most exciting and liberating aspects of Wikipedia is that people do not need to seek approval before doing something, thus enabling people to be bold and share their knowledge and enthusiasm. Yes, that does mean mistakes occur and some annoying vandalism, but that's better than some Kafkaesque need to fill in forms, follow arcane procedures and wait around while somebody else - who has a hidden authority - gives approval or, in this case, oddly, simply doesn't object after a period of one week. SilkTork 07:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• CommentBloody hell, man, assume good faith, please. I take it you've heard of WP:STUB, for a similar project? Hiding Talk 15:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP. This is an excellent portal. Very, very, very, informative. This is definitely a keeper. :-)--Before the dawn 23:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, no valid reason whatsoever given to delete. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.