From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There's quite a lot that links here, but it's a shit-stub. Anyone got the expertise to build it into an article, or shall we redirect it somewhat questionably to 'astronomy' or 'universe' or some such? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel

...and don't forget there is a religious dimension to cosmology, too. some other wiki has several articles on Biblical/Hindu/Mormon/Buddhist/Islamic cosmologies. It's so broad a term as to almost be meaningless. Unless we want to do a second-rate encyclopedia article, the potential for woo-debunking is just too much for one article. and a lot of that would be sheer bloody repetition of stuff we do elsewhere. PowderSmokeAndLeather (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with PSaL. Either this will end up being a rather useless article focused on the physics, or a massive article focused on the physics and religious woo. - Grant (Talk) 22:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
So what's your suggestion? WéáśéĺóíďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The universe article seems like an alright redirect target for the most part; it has a short section on religious matters as well. For anything that might not gel very well with that, simply removing the offending wiki-links might suffice. - Grant (Talk) 22:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Redirected. The skimpy basis for a proper article is all still here in the history, for anyone who cares enough to take on such a massive project. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I definitely think this was the right change. Cosmology has two very broad meanings with their own associated sets of woo and garbage surrounding them. There's cosmology in physics, which encompasses the Big Bang, stellar inflation, and basically all of the junk YECs throw out about the starlight problem and all of that. Then there are also cosmologies in the religious sense (and there are a lot of them). I just don't see a better way to turn this page into something that supports the mission and is more than a glorified linkspam to other articles. - Grant (Talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)