Talk:God is trying to trick you with dinosaur bones
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)