The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated. Several users also expressed a desire to rename Category:Climate change skepticism and denial. That will require a new nomination because the category was not tagged with Template:Cfr and was not the overall focus of this nomination.Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we are at the point to where it is unacceptable to claim that it is skepticism. Everyone should be skeptical as a part of good science. But climate change deniers are not engaging in scientific skepticism, but rather political rhetoric and ideology. I think we are far behind in letting this stand this long. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename in principle, though preferably with a less pointy target name; I'm saying this for NPOV, even though I personally agree they should be ridiculed. —烏Γ(kaw), 08:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support naming both these and their parent category to "Climate change deniers". This solves the terrible double-name. The sub-categories should match the parent name. Note: I am the creator of this category. Prhartcom (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with renaming the parent category to Climate change denial. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The present name is NPOV. I think the deniers are wrong and so do most people, but that majority POV is still a POV. We should not apply our POV judgement on a controversial subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Valid science is not a "Point of view." It isn't controversial among anyone with any scholarship in the subject matter. We don't have to pretend there is a real controversy because there are a small number of fanatics out there who cry "controversy." We don't treat the flat-Earthers that way either. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A majority agreement is consensus. Jerod Lycett (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Helps more clearly distinguish between skeptics and those who think change is beneficial. Ssscienccce (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, no combination, just the simple change to the one-word-difference, principally per Prhartcom and Nederlandse Leeuw, above. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename either according nomination or as a combination per parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
