Template talk:LessWrong
Subject
[edit]This template does not in fact appear to be about rationality as such (the article linked in its header), but quite specifically about LessWrong affiliates. I suggest a move - David Gerard (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Where would you suggest moving it to? Making it centered on LessWrong itself might have made sense five or so years ago, but now LessWrong is largely a dead site (off-wiki discussion). Spectra239 (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, that's the actual common factor between everything on this template. There isn't a thing called "Applied rationality" that is notable under that name, and it's clearly a label being applied to the thing LW/CFAR puts forward as "rationality"; which itself should not be misleadingly claimed to be the thing at Rationality, which doesn't even mention LessWrong. Nothing wrong with a template about a moribund site if it's notable, which it is, and has notable things that form a sensible grouping, as this does. I'd just call it Template:LessWrong and have that in the title bar - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess that's the "least bad" option. There's actually lots of reliable source material on CFAR/LW ideology (as distinct from CFAR as an organization and lesswrong.com as a website), but it's annoyingly referred to as just "rationality" which (as you note) also has plenty of other uses. This recent NYT article does use "applied rationality", but that usage isn't generally found in the other sources. I guess we could make a new page about "Rationality (practice)" or something and disambig rationality, but that would be ugly too. Spectra239 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- LW's ambit claim on the word "rationality" is probably not something we have the sources to support at this stage. I'd just make this template:LessWrong for now - David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I like the idea of creating this template, which groups many related concepts, people, etc. But I agree with David Gerard that the template should have a better (linked) header title. The word 'applied' does not even appear in Rationality (except for this template), although 'practical' does. Template:LessWrong would be a bit problematic as several template items are not related to LW, or only indirectly related. Ideally, there should be a proper Applied rationality article that covers and connects most of the items in this template. Until then, maybe change the header title to 'Applied rationality'? I admit that it hardly improves matters, but it is less misleading as it doesn't imply that an Applied rationality article exists. If an existing article has to be chosen to link to in the header title, I'd also go with moving to Template:LessWrong. Gap9551 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed with Gap9551 Spectra239 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- I like the idea of creating this template, which groups many related concepts, people, etc. But I agree with David Gerard that the template should have a better (linked) header title. The word 'applied' does not even appear in Rationality (except for this template), although 'practical' does. Template:LessWrong would be a bit problematic as several template items are not related to LW, or only indirectly related. Ideally, there should be a proper Applied rationality article that covers and connects most of the items in this template. Until then, maybe change the header title to 'Applied rationality'? I admit that it hardly improves matters, but it is less misleading as it doesn't imply that an Applied rationality article exists. If an existing article has to be chosen to link to in the header title, I'd also go with moving to Template:LessWrong. Gap9551 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- LW's ambit claim on the word "rationality" is probably not something we have the sources to support at this stage. I'd just make this template:LessWrong for now - David Gerard (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I guess that's the "least bad" option. There's actually lots of reliable source material on CFAR/LW ideology (as distinct from CFAR as an organization and lesswrong.com as a website), but it's annoyingly referred to as just "rationality" which (as you note) also has plenty of other uses. This recent NYT article does use "applied rationality", but that usage isn't generally found in the other sources. I guess we could make a new page about "Rationality (practice)" or something and disambig rationality, but that would be ugly too. Spectra239 (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, that's the actual common factor between everything on this template. There isn't a thing called "Applied rationality" that is notable under that name, and it's clearly a label being applied to the thing LW/CFAR puts forward as "rationality"; which itself should not be misleadingly claimed to be the thing at Rationality, which doesn't even mention LessWrong. Nothing wrong with a template about a moribund site if it's notable, which it is, and has notable things that form a sensible grouping, as this does. I'd just call it Template:LessWrong and have that in the title bar - David Gerard (talk) 11:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- Moved to Template:LessWrong, until someone comes up with a better name for what this template is about - David Gerard (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've also reorganised the contents a bit and alphabetised - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)