Conservapedia talk:Editing article and talk pages

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Auld Nick (Talk | contribs) at 11:25, 20 May 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Only for Americans?

I am a conservative christian, but being a conservative, bible-believing christian does NOT automatically make you an American, and vice versa. One of my only qualms regarding this website is the fact that is biased towards America/ns. I don't think it's fair that any articles that I write can be edited so that they use only American spelling, but I'm not allowed to change spelling anywhere in any entry. Maybe I'm nit-picking a bit here. Anyway, I just think that this project should be garnered towards christians all over the globe - not just in the US!--Catherine Morland 17:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia was started by a group of patriotic Americans, so please forgive any pro american bias. We want spelling to be consistent throughout the site, so we ask that Aamerican spelling be used. you can fix spelling errors anywhere you want, as long as you are not britishizing or otherwise changing american spellings that you might disagree with. --TimSvendsen 18:06, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


I don't think everyone has an in-browser spell-checker. Internet Explorer does not offer it. To my knowledge, it is only equipped to Mozilla Firefox browsers. The same is the case with the Google tool bar. I think we should reword it. I have no suggestion on how to state it, but I'm sure we will come up with something. --<<-David R->> 00:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

it's the ABC/check on the Google toolbar.--Lohengrin 00:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Too bad there is not a fact checker too, or maybe a translation from 3rd grade level writing to high school level writing. Tmtoulouse 00:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
That would certainly be helpful. Look into that :). --<<-David R->> 00:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
There are spell checkers for Explorer, Opera, and Firefox/Mozilla. I'm not sure how up-to-date they are (saved those links a good while ago), but it's a start. --Sid 3050 00:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Firefox 2.0 comes with a built-in spelling checker and it should be changed to read that you should just update Firefox to the latest version to get a spelling checker. Ribbix 02:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Done. Philip J. Rayment 02:36, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

There is a free spelling checker which is MediaWiki compatible. A friend of mine installed it on another wiki. (Till then, I use TextPad's spellcheck; the only problem with that, is markup like double brackets get flagged as errors.)

Another solution, used successfully in Wikipedia's early days, is to post a list of commonly misspelled words. Then users (wiki-gnomes) can search for articles containing the misspelled words. I was part of this spell-check project "back in the day". --Ed Poor 13:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

"Use correct spelling as often as possible." How about "always use correct spelling"? Here's a hint I use whenever I get my i's and e's mixed up - paste your text into whatever program you have handy (like Word) that has a spellchecker. See how it flies. Fix it. Copy and paste it back into the edit box. Voila! Oh, there's another way to go, too. Ask someone who is a better speller than you if you are in doubt. Human 02:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Or use Firefox w/ its built in spellchecker! ColinRtalk 02:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Wikis as sources

Does this rule also apply to "External Links" (and "Further Reading"), or only to inline references? --Sid 3050 09:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

I would hope it doesn't. As long as a primary source for inline references aren't wikis, that should increase credibility. Hengineer 07:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Always use AD and BC?

That reads as if all years are to an era designation. Are we supposed to use AD 2007 when referring to current events? Whenever I sign something...

Dpbsmith 15:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

am I expected to go back in and edit it to read

Dpbsmith 15:06, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)?

I doubt it.

I think this needs some wordsmithing, and propose this substitute language:

In dates, if it is necessary for clarity to show the era of the year, use the designations BC and AD (not the substitutes BCE and CE).

Dpbsmith 15:12, 30 March AD 2007 (EDT)

How is it now? --CPAdmin1 15:15, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine. Dpbsmith 15:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Date format

Why do we have the preference for the date style "July 4, 1776", when the wiki software can automatically convert dates to the users' preferences? All it takes is for dates to be written in the form [[4 July]] [[1776]] ''OR'' [[July 4]] [[1776]] and the software should display them in the user's preferred format. The user preference page[1] Date and Time tab allows one to set the preferred format, but it seems as though the conversion ability has not been switched on in Conservapedia. Philip J. Rayment 19:33, 31 March 2007 (EDT) The preferences don't do that, I think. They change how we see the date and time in pages like this article's history. Go check it out, it works. --Sid 3050 19:40, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Reading further into it, I see what you mean. Hm... --Sid 3050 19:43, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, after some checking, I assume you mean this config setting (linking it here so the webmaster doesn't have to look)? --Sid 3050 19:52, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that's it. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that the user's date preferences are only for this, however. Philip J. Rayment 20:04, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Use correct spelling as often as possible.

Sweet thought. This protected article seems to be warm and fuzzy about illiteracy.--Lohengrin 02:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

On plurals in titles

There seem to be a large number of articles where the text of the article is in the plural form of the word. Arteries, Bills of credit, Biofuels, Catholics, etc... The wiki software makes it easy to work with singular form biofuels is written as [[biofuel]]s (do realize that at the time of this writing, there is no biofuel article). Shouldn't this be rectified and part of the manual of style to write the article about the singular form rather than the plural form? It would simplify many redirects. --Mtur 18:19, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

You mean the title of the article, but yes, I agree entirely. Philip J. Rayment 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Capitalisation of titles

In line with the comments above about plurals in titles, I believe that we should have titles in lowercase (except for proper nouns, of course). At the moment, if we want to link to an article about biblical parables, we have to include the link as [[Biblical Parables|biblical parables]], where we should be able to just link to [[biblical parables]]. Philip J. Rayment 05:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

What about punctuation?

Should we be using "American" punctuation? For example, usually a comma or period goes within quotes in American usage, and outside of quotes in British usage. Albeit, people's grammar in on-line contexts is often deplorable, and Conservapedia is no exception. Sterile 14:28, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

  • One would suppose either is correct, depending on where the contributor is from. Since we have dropped the restriction about using only American-English, how would enforcing American punctuation work? --~ TK MyTalk 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Article subjects

I noticed that throughout the website on shorter articles, the subject of the article is not written in bold text upon first mention. I suggest adding this to the Manual of Style as this makes the article slightly easier to understand. Scriabin 01:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thats probably laziness on the author's(my) part. I'll stand behind it though.--Elamdri 01:24, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Citation Style

Is there a preferred style for writing citations that are more substantial than URLs? I could write up a quick guide on Turabian or APA, if anyone wants. Or it could be incorporated into the MoS. Using an established style for reference lists and bibliographies will help researchers and make the site look better, improving the appearance of reliability. (I make no promises about reliability in fact!)--All Fish Welcome 04:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Here you go, AllFishWelcome, have a look around, and the the style project page and the one about footnotes.

Citing Sources and Using Footnotes Always cite and give credit to your sources, even if in the public domain. Please do not cite wikis as sources, except when specifically talking about that wiki.

Please also see: Conservapedia: footnotes - technical help --~ TK MyTalk 05:06, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

The technical help page only addresses the wiki markup used to make footnotes. It says nothing about the style to be used. I've seen everything from unadorned URLs to ornate (and incorrect) academic-style citations.--All Fish Welcome 00:40, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Well then, perhaps you could be specific, and suggest how it be done. I am not adverse to learning, Fish. --~ TK MyTalk 00:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
I wrote a little bit about citation styles here. I'm about 70% content with my recommendations. I'd still like a better way to separate content notes from reference notes. I've been thinking about it and haven't come up with a satisfactory solution yet.--All Fish Welcome 03:11, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Can I edit this article?

I have some great suggestions, for instance, on how to create an article, that make the "web" of CP better, rather than a series of isolated stubs. I guess I could hash them out here, but it's easier to just put them in the article itself. Anyone seriously object? Human 01:05, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Firefox link

What about altering the links to the direct download pages? I think "[2]" would be the more appropriate page for that download. Hengineer 05:35, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks. I've added the Firefox link. Philip J. Rayment 06:23, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Comprehension level?

What is the target comprehension level for this site? Is there a template to use for when articles are completely filled with jargon that is otherwise unreadable? Who is responsible for rewriting the material (in particular technical articles - personally, I don't have the background to be able to understand the jargon of economics and I know others lack the deep computer jargon that I am familiar with) --Mtur 23:20, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

According to Conservapedia:Locks and Blocks:
Sysop's and Bureaucrats are the Administrators of Conservapedia. Their instructions, as to Conservapedia policy and/or the appropriateness or inappropriateness of user actions, are to be followed. Failure to do so will result in the user being blocked.
From that one can only conclude that since Ed Poor is a sysop his demands are now policy. Please don't delete Comprehension. See here.
Auld Nick 07:40, 16 May 2007 (EDT)


Shouldn't {{DEFAULTSORT: Sirname, Given Middle}} be {{DEFAULTSORT: Surname, Christian Middle}} in a pro-Christian encyclopedia? Auld Nick 10:26, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps, but the manual is describing how to sort more than just individuals who have been baptized into the Christian faith. Even so, you're welcome to bring this to the attention of sysops in good faith. HeartOfGoldtalk 12:19, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
Isn't that just another example of the liberal bias we'd expect from Wikipedia? Being a Christian project we should use Christian terminology. Auld Nick 12:25, 20 May 2007 (EDT)