Talk:Apologetics and dinosaurs
Article title styles
I notice from the recent edit history that we have a lot of articles whose titles contain a loose sort of conversational style. I feel like this approach is a little dicey for a few reasons. First, it seems like the argument title should be easily accessible via a search. I can see somebody coming here, typing "kalam" in the search box, and finding what they want immediately. I can't see anyone typing the exact phrase "God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones."
Second, it's almost a certainty that these kinds of articles are going to collide with each other, since they're not going to be easy to find by someone who is trying to create a similar argument and may unwittingly start a new article. Example: Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith? and Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs? are both recent edits, and they both have this loose "question" format, but they address pretty much the same issue... don't they?
More importantly, they're probably redundant to articles which have more appropriate names. For interest, we have You are a communist. Is personalizing it a good idea, or should this article be more like "All atheists are communists"?
Here's a list of recent articles in the history:
- God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones
- Hypocrisy of celebrating religious holidays (not so much conversational as being odd to search on)
- That might be true for you, but its not true for me (possibly could be rolled into articles on "truth" or "postmodernism"?)
- If God didn't create everything, who did?
- So you think we came from monkeys (whether the article stays or not, that "so" just sounds ridiculous)
- Why are you trying to tear down other people's faith?
- Why can't everyone just have their own beliefs?
- Why do atheists inspire such hatred?
- You are a communist
- What are your qualifications? (Argument from authority isn't good enough?)
- More generally, a lot of the things listed under Common objections to atheism and counter-apologetics really aren't.
The writing's not bad, it's the organization I'm worried about. Thoughts? --Kazim 07:11, 26 December 2011 (CST)
- This sounds similar to the problem at TV Tropes (or, for that matter, in programming), where some idea or theme appears all over the place in different incarnations, but doesn't really have a name, the way the logical fallacies do. What TV Tropes did, and what the Gang of Four did with patterns, was to give these ideas names. Nobody's going to discover TV Tropes and immediately search for "Mushroom Samba", but once the term exists, it becomes a common identifier that people can refer to.
- We can do the same thing. Perhaps new pages can be started in "conversational style", using whichever question or phrase prompted the original author to start the page. Put the new page into an "Arguments that need a name" category. In the discussion page, people can try to come up with a better name for the argument, and once some sort of consensus emerges, rename the page.
- --Arensb 08:50, 26 December 2011 (CST)