Template talk:Richard Dawkins
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessmentscale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Picture
[edit]Do we need such a big picture? It should be small enough that it doesn't enlarge the template.Richard001(talk)23:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The Dawkins Delusion
[edit]why remove criticism from "see also"? Leave the link to the article on the Dawkins delusion.Hypershock(talk)14:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's not criticism, that's a low-volume book which is far less about Dawkins than it is about evangilizing. In other words, it is, despite the title, off-topic.KillerChihuahua?!?14:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Er, is it really low volume? It was for a while the 68th most popular book the UK Amazon site.JoshuaZ(talk)16:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what is meant by low volume - if you mean the size of the book it certainly is. I've read it and it didn't seem to have much evangelizing to me (at least for a Christian author). There is the question of how many response books should be included here, but if they are as popular as this one they probably merit inclusion. If it is,Dawkin's GodandDarwin's Angelshould also be included I guess.Richard001(talk)21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I didn't realize that Alister McGrath had multiple books on Dawkins. A tad obsessive. Why not just have a see also to McGrath then? Alternatively why not just include them in the see also for the God Delusion?JoshuaZ(talk)22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good grief, I hadn't seen that Dr Who added, missed it completely. Good catch, that has no business on this template.KillerChihuahua?!?22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I didn't realize that Alister McGrath had multiple books on Dawkins. A tad obsessive. Why not just have a see also to McGrath then? Alternatively why not just include them in the see also for the God Delusion?JoshuaZ(talk)22:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what is meant by low volume - if you mean the size of the book it certainly is. I've read it and it didn't seem to have much evangelizing to me (at least for a Christian author). There is the question of how many response books should be included here, but if they are as popular as this one they probably merit inclusion. If it is,Dawkin's GodandDarwin's Angelshould also be included I guess.Richard001(talk)21:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Er, is it really low volume? It was for a while the 68th most popular book the UK Amazon site.JoshuaZ(talk)16:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Should this be included under 'documentaries' or at all? Dawkins is only one of the six interviewees, and he has surely played a similarly large role in many other documentaries (e.g.Expelled: No Intelligence Allowedto name a particularly bad one). That all the other documentaries are his own work makes it a bit misleading too.Richard001(talk)07:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
South Park episodes
[edit]Should these be included?Richard001(talk)00:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)