Forum:EvoWiki ports

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Useless info)
Line 19: Line 19:
 
::::::Wait, we ''aren't'' explicitly atheistic? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 
::::::Wait, we ''aren't'' explicitly atheistic? [[User:Nebuchadnezzar|Nebuchadnezzar]] ([[User talk:Nebuchadnezzar|talk]]) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 
::::::::Sorta-kinda. There are a few Christian, Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim editors. [[user:Ty|<span style="color:green">Тy</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ty|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 
::::::::Sorta-kinda. There are a few Christian, Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim editors. [[user:Ty|<span style="color:green">Тy</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Ty|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</sup> 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
:::::::They could all go into a [[creationist claims]] article or [[creationist arguments]]. {{User:Blue/sig}} 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
+
:::::::They could all go into a [[creationist claims]] article or [[creationist arguments]]. Or should I say [[fundamentalist claims]]. {{User:Blue/sig}} 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:42, 14 November 2011

The following pages are not, in their current state, proper RationalWiki articles. What do we propose to do with them?

For my part I think we should incorporate them all into a set of broader articles, or into existing articles. For instance, the one about the Pope's statement should be incorporated into the article on John Paul II. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Bob suggested an article cataloging dumb questions apologists and/or creationists think are clever. Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe some of them could go into one of those side-by-side or essay thingamajigs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps one big counter-apologetics article? But it also raises the question of whether the wiki is openly and specifically atheistic. In my personal opinion that would be a Good Thing but in the past there have been objections to such a position. We are now pretty close to that situation but engaging in explicit counter-apologetics would put us clearly in the atheist camp.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Destroy them all! Aceace 20:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
When you look at them carefully, they actually have lots of useful stuff. Many, like the one on the pope's statment, should stand on their own. Others can be integrated. But it seems to me, given how much stuff we have around here that we want to improve on, the best answer is just leave them copper articles, and try to get people to work with each one individually, rather than looking at them as some kind of collective. And, don't make any decision right now, just cause 'gosh, they appeared on my recent changes - fix and fix now.- Heh. Just my two cents, having worked a bit on the pope's statement. Pink mowse.pngGodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Wait, we aren't explicitly atheistic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorta-kinda. There are a few Christian, Pagan, Jewish, and Muslim editors. Тytalk 20:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
They could all go into a creationist claims article or creationist arguments. Or should I say fundamentalist claims. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 20:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support