This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see
info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of
Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating
neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see
deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to
philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
I think that for people who watch the sessions but don't personally know many of the speakers (I knew some of them only from their writings) it would really be helpful if the article would contain some "mugshots" to improve understanding of subsequent discussions.
Shinobu (
talk)
17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Thanks! It also livened the article up a little. Also, lol @ Booba-Kiki. I chose "wrong" because I though Kiki sounded more cutesy and thus thought it was more appropriate for the purple round blob. I can't say if I thought at all about Booba. :-)
Shinobu (
talk)
23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)reply
The images look really good! Great improvement! Do you think it would be ok if we put a screenshot of the video to give an idea of how the conference looked? Or would we have to ask "The Science Network" for permission?
Hamsterlopithecus (
talk)
06:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)reply
Annual conference
This is an annual conference, so do we need an article for each one? I hardly think so. I'd love to see this revamped thusly:
I think the number of participants, or at least the number of actual speakers, is sufficiently low to be able to list them all. The 2006 conference has about two dozen presentations with discussion, so if you cut away or summarize talks that weren't that interesting, you should be able to get a decent (not too much, not too little) amount of text per conference. Of course, that would leave the question which talks aren't that interesting.
Shinobu (
talk)
23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)reply
It's not so much about bloat (though that's a concern too), but rather notability. But yea, WP's not paper, so I won't worry about that too much. But the summaries of each talk really need to be cut down. We can't do it by how interesting they are (
WP:OR) but we can do it by how prominent the speakers are. So Steven Weinberg would get decent coverage, while Richard Sloan merits a bare mention. –
Mike.
lifeguard | @en.wb00:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)reply
Maybe, but in science it matters more what is said than who says it, and I thought that Richard Sloan made a rather good point, so I still feel a bit uncomfortable with that. Looking back at the article, I note that the summary of his talk is not very representative. Perhaps merging the 2006 and 2007 articles is not such a good idea after all.
Shinobu (
talk)
21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)reply
This article should be improved, not razed and redirected
I agree with Cirt that this article sounds too much like an official webpage of the event. Nevertheless, the event was newsworthy and the article does contain a lot of useful information about it. There seems, in fact, to be a more general problem with articles about
The Science Network and its "Beyond Belief" symposia. In my opinion, our role as Wikipedians is to improve the articles, not to raze them. Turning this long and informative article into one paragraph in
Beyond Belief (symposium) does not improve the quality of material we offer to our readers.
betsythedevine (
talk)
14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
Two problems: It reads like one big advertisement for the organization/event. And it does not have to be "one paragraph" at
Beyond Belief (symposium) - it could be a large subsection in fact, but it would be better off merged there. Cirt (
talk)
18:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.