Template talk:Evident

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

obvious and/or undisputed

The very use of this template at E=mc² shows how bad the idea is[1] .

I don't agree. The template hasn't changed anything about that page or its content, except that new users will now be swiftly directed to the relevant page that tells them why a reference is not required. It will be particularly useful to those with some knowledge of Wikipedia, who may assume that Conservapedia works in the same way.
In the future, I anticipate that this template will also act as a good, robust response to those who seek to undermine good material through excessive use of the {{fact}} template, as has happened here in the past.
However, if you'd like to suggest better wording than "obvious and/or undisputed" then please do. I think we could probably improve on that.--CPalmer 04:15, 18 April 2012 (EDT)
Update: I've now expanded the notes to give more examples of where this might be used. In the case of E=mc2, I would say that the "liberal claptrap" statement falls into the third category - it sums up what is said later on in the article. I expect that what I've put could still be further improved.--CPalmer 04:20, 18 April 2012 (EDT)

References

  1. Citation not needed. See here, point 14.

Numbering

I cannot edit the page because of spam filter. The reference to rule 13 can be updated to 14. Cipe 18:51, 24 April 2012 (EDT)

Thank you, Cipe - that was well spotted. I have made the update.--CPalmer 11:03, 30 April 2012 (EDT)