Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 925:
Line 925: + + + +
→Reorganization: Like newspaper articles and good websites, ''Conservapedia'' entries prioritize the presentation of information based on significance. In this example, the fact about ultrasounds
:I don't see a problem in doing that. You can also transclude parts onto a template and load it back onto the page that way, thus relieving some of the bulk as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
:I don't see a problem in doing that. You can also transclude parts onto a template and load it back onto the page that way, thus relieving some of the bulk as well. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 21:00, 24 October 2010 (EDT)
I have concerns about the changes already made, which give priority to a speculative poll while downgrading the fact that nearly 80% of women who see the ultrasound of their unborn child decide against abortion.
Like newspaper articles and good websites, ''Conservapedia'' entries prioritize the presentation of information based on significance. In this example, the fact about ultrasounds should carry more weight and receive higher priority than Guttmacher's speculative poll.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 24 October 2010 (EDT)