This category is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Please don't add your personal list of annotations to the category[edit]
Categories are not supposed to be annotated, per Wikipedia:Categorization. You are adding your personal list of external links. That is POV, in my judgment. And the external links aren't very good choices, in my view. I wasted a lot of time trying to figure out the point of them, since there are already articles in the category that have that information. Can every editor add his/her own personal list? Please at least wait until the discussion is concluded at Village Pump/Policy. I've never seen any other editor unilaterally dictate his sources to a category before. Star767 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have already corrected your mistaken belief that these links are annotations, and your bringing them up again as such is inappropriate. Please do not ignore this point again. These are reference resources, and they will remain. Please stop removing them. If you do not understand the point of them, that supports that you should not interfere with them. Also, please do not portray this as personal, or some lone gunman. That line would equally apply to you in this case. These reference resources are ones that are accepted by WikiProject Philosophy as credible ones, so please respect that editors interested in philosophy topics will be using those resources. Greg Bard (talk) 02:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I mean reference sources. The two editors that responded to my question at Village Pump/Policy agreed with me. They looked at what you had added to the category and said categories should not have reference sources. Star767 (talk) 03:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
