Talk:This Week In Science
What has this article to do with the Mission Statement? All I see is a rather encyclopaedic article about a children's show about science. InaVegt 09:41, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
If this information is ever needed to be linked to from RationalWiki, a link to Wikipedia would most likely suffice. InaVegt 09:41, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Agreed. Nothing else even links here, and there are more developed versions elsewhere. I tossed the delete tag up, so we'll see if we can't get a couple of comments before it goes. --Kels 09:57, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Yesssss - but there are editors who like to set up these sort of science-related topics which have no obvious mission relevance. We have quite a number of them anyway. I have suggested previously that we should create a "Science Namespace" which might be a good idea for things of this nature.--Bobbing up 10:08, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- I agree, stuff like this could fit into a science namespace. As long as we keep the main namespace to the Mission Statement, it would be fine to have material that, while very rational, doesn't fit in the Mission Statement in a separate namespace. InaVegt 10:50, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
- Yesssss - but there are editors who like to set up these sort of science-related topics which have no obvious mission relevance. We have quite a number of them anyway. I have suggested previously that we should create a "Science Namespace" which might be a good idea for things of this nature.--Bobbing up 10:08, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
As the creator of this node, I'd like to say that I thought this did fall under the mission statement. I admit that I am new here, but I took the goal of this wiki to simply be for the promotion of all things rational and sciency with a liberal admixture of humor thrown in.
This is hardly a children's show. They are sponsored by audiblekids.com, but they present a good roundup of science news from all fields. (Perhaps if you listened to a sample show... ;-) My vote is obviously to keep. Goat can be added if people want. Omniwombat 01:50, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- Upon review of said mission statement, I see that yes, this does not actively meet goals one two or three. I submit though, that all science in general should be promoted as an indirect way of combating ignorance. Do we want to be merely a reflection of Conservapedia or do we aim to surpass it? Omniwombat 02:21, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- Thing is that we don't really want to be a reflection of Wikipedia either. See RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article.--Bobbing up 02:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- I can definitely see why we wouldn't want to be. Do single articles such as this condemn us down a slippery slope to that end? I put this here because I like the show and thought that like minded people who hadn't heard of it might also be interested if/when they stumbled across it. The above proposal to create a Science namespace for things such as this is definitely appealing, and I would happily support that as a solution. Omniwombat 02:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- Depends on how much interest there would be in creating a new namespace. I think it would be a good idea but others might legitimately argue that it took us somewhere where we didn't want to be. The place to bring it up would probably be RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and use the site intercom to tell people the suggestion had been made and to invite responses. I'm not entirely convinced that today would be the best day to do it though. Hangovers and celebrations all round I expect.--Bobbing up 03:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- Amen brother. Hail to the chief. :-) Omniwombat 03:14:15.9265358979323846..., 5 November 2008 (EST)
- Depends on how much interest there would be in creating a new namespace. I think it would be a good idea but others might legitimately argue that it took us somewhere where we didn't want to be. The place to bring it up would probably be RationalWiki talk:Community Standards and use the site intercom to tell people the suggestion had been made and to invite responses. I'm not entirely convinced that today would be the best day to do it though. Hangovers and celebrations all round I expect.--Bobbing up 03:08, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- I can definitely see why we wouldn't want to be. Do single articles such as this condemn us down a slippery slope to that end? I put this here because I like the show and thought that like minded people who hadn't heard of it might also be interested if/when they stumbled across it. The above proposal to create a Science namespace for things such as this is definitely appealing, and I would happily support that as a solution. Omniwombat 02:52, 5 November 2008 (EST)
- Thing is that we don't really want to be a reflection of Wikipedia either. See RationalWiki:Project Whitewash/What is a RationalWiki article.--Bobbing up 02:29, 5 November 2008 (EST)
I agree with the motion to delete, unless this can be tied it to the rest of the site somehow. Which perhaps it can. ħuman
22:08, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Move to fun?[edit]
Would those murderous users who are trying to delete this be satisfied if it moved to the Fun namespace? I would. Omniwombat 22:38, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- How about moving it to the Dead namespace, where it would at least get a decent burial? ħuman 23:34, 12 January 2009 (EST)
- No need to be a griefer about it. On further reading, I also argue that this page is just as relevant to the mission as this one, this one, and this one The first, I argue is particularly relevant because it too has to do with radio stations. Omniwombat 00:18, 13 January 2009 (EST)