Talk:A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom

Merge tag

Copying a discussion from my Talk page:

Would appreciate your removal of the [mergeto|Andrew Dickson White] entry in A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. I am trying to avoid the eventual splitting out of this article from "Andrew Dickson White" as you have previously split out my previous entries in Bertrand Russell into the separate article A History of Western Philosophy and my entries in H. L. Mencken into Treatise on the Gods. I hope that you can appreciate my effort in attempting to stay ahead of the curve by initiating the separate article A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom as opposed to integrating it into "Andrew Dickson White" and then having the article split back out of "...White" by you or someone else at a later date. My participation in both articles "...White" and "A History of the Warfare..." is far from complete, but will be coming to fruition in the near future. Thanks, ELApro (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I placed this merge tag is that the page for Andrew Dickson White currently only has two quotes - both of which are from A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. As such, it didn't seem to make sense to have separate pages for them both. If there are quotes from other works that may appear on the author's page, then that would lead to having the two pages. Secondly, the reason for splitting out the other pages as you've mentioned is that the author's page became so large that it had become unwieldy. It is common practice to split out pages when both the author's page becomes quite large and when the amount of quotes from a specific work is such that a separate page is warranted. In this case, my recommendation to you would be to add at least one quote from another work to the author's page (and then a stub tag can be placed there to show that more is coming) and then move the two existing quotes to the A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom page. ~ UDScott (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, copying a discussion from the Talk:Andrew Dickson White page:

The article A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom will lengthen greatly with time, so it is inadvisable to merge it with "Andrew Dickson White," since that article will then eventually become too cumbersome. I am trying to avoid the eventual splitting out of "...Warfare of Science with Theology..." from "Andrew Dickson White" as were my previous entries in Bertrand Russell split into the separate article A History of Western Philosophy and my entries in H. L. Mencken split into Treatise on the Gods. I hope that you can appreciate my effort in attempting to stay ahead of the curve by initiating the separate article A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, as opposed to integrating it into "Andrew Dickson White" and then having the article split back out of "...White" by someone else again at a later date. My participation in both articles "...White" and "A History of the Warfare..." is far from complete, but will be coming to fruition in the near future.

Thank You for your consideration ELApro (talk) 2 October 2012

This would be fine if the Andrew Dickson White page had any content outside of a couple of quotes from A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. If those two quotes are moved to the page for the work, the author's page would have no content and then should be deleted. That is the reason for the merge tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 13:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This has been overtaken by events: the author page has grown substantially. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the tag. ~ UDScott (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Too much to merge but...

I encourage editors to consider the difference between a collection of quotations and a condensed book. The point of Wikiquote is not to cover a thesis, but to collect remarkable quotes. With too much of a good thing, and especially too many ordinary things (such as recapitulating what others have said), an article may cease to effectively highlight brilliant words and ideas, becoming a different kind of thing, a sort of literary digest—not a bad thing, but not really a Wikiquote thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I don't really see a lot that is really worth quoting. Most of this is not very memorable and I would suggest much of it be trimmed. ~ UDScott (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The article has not been trimmed since the foregoing observations were made. Quite the contrary, it has more than tripled in size since then. Perhaps it is time to consider just deleting the whole thing. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Entertainingly inaccurate

The tales of geologists and of Darwin keeping his theory under a seal of secrecy are amusing, but modern scholarship indicates that Darwin told many people about his ideas of tranmutation, and "the only one of these people who was asked to keep it to himself, as far as we know, was Gray in America". . . Dave souza (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)