RationalWiki talk:EvoWiki

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

About the human evolution section.[edit]

"I've Nowikied it to clear the multiple refs (is it copypasted from somewhere?)"

The later parts are copypasted from the wikipedia article about the evolution of human intelligence. It is not the whole article, not even a whole section, just select parts from the "models" section. The first parts, about human cooperativeness and multiregional avoidation of competition, is of my own making, with only some article names copypasted into references. Just wanted to spread some fresh theories about evolution! After all, having several models about how humans (or any organism) evolved does make it more difficult for creationists to claim that disproving a specific model disproves evolution altogether, so RationalWiki should be interested in spreading theories such as these. That the IP adress is different is because I had to use another computer.


Can I pls haz curator? 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Pls? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 18:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Largely for the purpose of deleting the now-redundant logical fallacy articles on EW. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea who can assign this (not sure I can). Who can? - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's people with adman powrz. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Welp, that wiki's dead. Unless trent goes out of his way to appoint a few new admins. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
But I wanna delete articcleeessssss [1] 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 15:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Why do you -need- to delete them?--Miekal 15:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Mostly because then I know the page has been ported. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
You could just remember? We don't need to delete the articles just because we have them here now. --Miekal 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Because there's not much point having them there. (Personally I wouldn't delete, but leave a link to the RW article. We're supposed to be porting the content over.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
FCP is now a curator and a bureaucrat, which means he can add new users and give them powers. GO FOR IT!!!!1!!!!! - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
"!!!!1!!!!!" αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Some suggestions for ports[edit]

  • Fossil Sorting — looks like a well-written article but no references. A good balance for the existing RW article Fossil sorting by the global flood
  • Henry Morris' Fossil Sorting Predictions in "Scientific Creationism" — There's already a RW article on Henry M. Morris but the Evo article is a very detailed critique
  • Dual inheritance theory — not covered in RW
  • Why are primates so smart? — not bad, places humans in the animal context with regard to evolution

Bongolian (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

License headache[edit]

EvoWiki is under CC by-nc-sa. RW is CC by-sa. You can't just pour the former into the latter (properly, you need every contributor to a given text agreeing). However, Trent edited the page in 2010 to say "The licenses are compatible". I've enquired precisely what this meant - David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently there was a notice about relicensing on EvoWiki for some time. Proceed, I guess! - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
...k? FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 14:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Pretty much. RMF (or RWF as it was then) and the people left at EvoWiki at the time thought that was enough. Contributor list to talk is probably a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've put a note to put a link back there. We might want to make it a template for ease of use - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Can we get rid of the underscores to improve readability? Also if we do this, some of the links should work that don't work now. Bongolian (talk) 00:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free for cosmetics, but it'll be literally the same link if you replace the underscores with spaces - David Gerard (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Just replaced for cosmetics - David Gerard (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Please don't "fix" the links - these are literally (capitalisation and all) the page names that got any hits. Instead, make a redirect to the title that uses RW conventions - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)