Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election has started!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Fun talk:Scat

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I hope the page is sufficiently on mission now, there is material about palaeontology, there is material attacking Young Earth Creationism and there is a reference to the The priest molestation scandal. Kirk Johnson (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I put {{bronze}} onto the page, I think it's good enough. If I haven't followed the correct procedure please tell me what I should do. Kirk Johnson (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that to be a good RW article it has to hit one or more of these mission objectives:
  • Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
  • Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
  • Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
  • Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
I'm afraid that at the moment I don't quite see it.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete[edit]

Off mission, etc, etc, etc. Burn it. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks presently off-mission to me. I'd be more inclined to send it to fun. But I also think we should give the original author a chance to speak for it first.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well I worked hard to get this article from a stub to a presentable shitty article, now you want to delete it. I was surprised how much intellectual material I could find round scat. If you want to move it to fun that’s not a big problem but a lot of the information in the article is serious. Kirk Johnson (talk) 12:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Look at Bob's bullet points above. Even in it's expanded state, the article is not on-mission. --Ψ GremlinParla! 12:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Kirk. Yes, I can see that you've worked a lot on this. The question though is not whether it's correct, intellectual or takes a sideways shot at something we think is odd. The question is, does the primary focus hit one of the mission objectives.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The primary focus doesn't hit a mission objective but secondary focuses do. If you really feel you must delete it I've got a copy on my computer and can transfer all that work to a different wiki where the criteria aren't so tight. I'm not Jesus (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think we need a few more opinions first. Others may disagree or have different thoughts.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I worked on this article because I hoped people would read it, laugh then move on to alternative articles that are more on mission. If others disagree that doesn’t matter too much as I’ve got a copy on my computer as I’m not Jesus has and I don’t mind if the article moves to a different wiki. Kirk Johnson (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
If this stays in Fun, I don't see why it can't stay. Webbtje (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)