Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
295,376
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + +
Conservapedia talk:Conservative point of view (CPOV) (view source)
Revision as of 20:56, April 20, 2019
, 20:56, April 20, 2019→"All articles must follow it"
:::::Either is fine with me, since this is really just expounding on the already existing policy. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree about categories. They are improving, but still badly broken in certain ways. If I run a recursive category tree page listing, I can really see some problems. For example, if I check Category:Christianity I get everything from foods to weapons. While both are mentioned in the Bible, which may be where these are coming from in the tree, Christianity is not a subset of foods or weapons, nor is it the other way around. We really need to pay more attention to that. By adding a page to a category, you are saying that this specific page is a smaller part of this category, and it entirely fits inside of this category with almost no overlap. This is not what many of our pages are currently doing. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
:::::Either is fine with me, since this is really just expounding on the already existing policy. In any case, I wholeheartedly agree about categories. They are improving, but still badly broken in certain ways. If I run a recursive category tree page listing, I can really see some problems. For example, if I check Category:Christianity I get everything from foods to weapons. While both are mentioned in the Bible, which may be where these are coming from in the tree, Christianity is not a subset of foods or weapons, nor is it the other way around. We really need to pay more attention to that. By adding a page to a category, you are saying that this specific page is a smaller part of this category, and it entirely fits inside of this category with almost no overlap. This is not what many of our pages are currently doing. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 16:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)
===An aside===
There is a tremendous opportunity now, with the total complete collapse of mainstream media credibility regarding sourcing. I doubt very much the WP is questioning if ''NYT'' or CNN are viable sources that meet their own standards for inclusions. By encouraging content creators right now, CP Admins could have tremendous power over what and who is "reputable, scholarly or mainstream" source, and what is "marginal, fringe, or extreme" (which describe MSNBC & CNN quite accurately). [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 16:56, 20 April 2019 (EDT)