Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive1

A Brief History of Time
I thought the only thing really wrong with "A Brief History of Time" was that Hawking was too fond of exclamation marks. Other than that I thought it pretty readable. Weirdbeard 12:05, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I was able to follow everything I already knew very easily. The stuff I didn't know was rather uninformative... so I feared that the sections I understood were also not very clear.  That was my experience, anyway.  ħ uman  17:44, 27 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Its linear organization is much easier to follow than The Universe in a Nutshell, in my opinion. Nerd (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"favourite target of quote mining by creationists"
Really? I think we need an example of this. Even if Hawking believes in God, he clearly doesn't believe in the six-day creation; he's all about the Big Bang theory. So why would the creationist crowd identify with him? I had a look at CP's article on him & didn't see any quote mining. & Creationwiki doesn't seem to mention him at all.  w easeLOId ~ 18:14, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

MC Hawking
I can't help but notice the page "MC Hawking" redirects here. Should the article contain anything about the Hawk Mans lesser known career as a lyrical terrorist? Web (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilbert
Not sure about keeping the Dilbert thing, that doesn't really require a presence, does it? Did he actually "voice" himself in the animated shows (which would count as a real "appearance")? Will we list every time anyone ever draws Hawking? 23:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You should never bet money that a theoretical physicist can't do something. He is listed as appearing as himself in cartoon form on wikipedia. Besides, it is the only show not listed where he appeared in cartoon form. I miss it so --Tabris (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "it is the only show not listed where he appeared in cartoon form" that's not quite clear. Oh, doh, I get it, this was an animated Dilbert TV thing, right?  Not the comic strip?  Sorry if my lack of cultural awareness caused me to misunderstand, it sounds like I did.  23:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've watched all of Dilbert but I don't recall Hawking... Then again, it was a while ago. I need to go back and watch it all again. 23:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't "doubting" he could or did "voice" himself, I was just curious, since he wouldn't have to do it for them to "use his voice" (all they'd need is the machine). 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget SUPER Hawking's appearance in The Simpsons. At any rate, IMDB credits him with 3 Simpsons stints and 0 Dilbert ones. Just sayin'... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lego Hawking
Here:http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=238397 Shame they're not on CC-BY-SA :p Though, I'm still not sure if it's awesome or just bad taste. 01:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hawkmini is crap, but Hawkmain is genius. Let's email the creator to see if they'll let us use it?  02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I like hawkspace, too, it actually brought a tear to my eye. 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Same builder: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=347651 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find a way of contacting people, but if you put "lego hawking" or similar into Google you can find it posted on a site that claims it to be CC 3.0, although not terribly explicitly. I suppose it doesn't matter, we've got the link on the talk page and people can see it. 13:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, the lego Palin didn't do much for me. There is something about Hawking that makes him eminently lego-able, I think it's the "fixed" posture aspect of his illness.
 * Yeah, I suppose you're right there. Though I only point out Palin because it never occured to me that you could make Lego based caricatures, which now that I've seen it, I think is a many-levels-of-awesome idea! 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Scientist
Redundant category: Already member of category:physicist. ТyUser_talk:Ty 09:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Can't he be both?  10:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with the Human here. The point of categories is to group things together so someone can find related things based on them. Thus, having redundant categories is not taboo. 14:40, 19 April 2011 (UTC)