Conservapedia talk:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia - Revision history

LT: /* Templates/infoboxes */

2021-08-09T23:19:15Z

‎Templates/infoboxes

AugustO: /* Templates/infoboxes */

2021-08-09T23:16:31Z

‎Templates/infoboxes

LT: /* Templates/infoboxes */

2021-08-09T23:11:27Z

‎Templates/infoboxes

LT: /* Templates/infoboxes */

2021-08-09T23:10:28Z

‎Templates/infoboxes

AugustO: /* Templates/infoboxes */

2021-08-09T23:00:33Z

‎Templates/infoboxes

LT: /* Templates/infoboxes */ new section

2021-08-09T22:46:49Z

‎Templates/infoboxes: new section

Conservative at 12:12, July 8, 2017

2017-07-08T12:12:44Z

Higuys: /* 13 */ new section

2012-05-25T03:16:11Z

‎13: new section

Higuys: /* 13 */ new section

2012-05-25T03:16:04Z

‎13: new section

RobSmith: /* #15 – »blog monitoring« */ clarify CP's stand on #15

2011-07-09T21:18:32Z

‎#15 – »blog monitoring«: clarify CP's stand on #15

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:19, August 9, 2021
Line 487:		Line 487:
	::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. CP also has some more variation for infobox templates, namely [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. CP also has some more variation for infobox templates, namely [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
	:::Indeed, you have improved both [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:16, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		:::Indeed, you have improved both [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:16, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::::Yeah, I made some adjustments. For [[Template:Infobox officeholder]] and Template:Infobox person, I added optional parameters to add military info based on the code in Template:Officeholder. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:19, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:16, August 9, 2021
Line 486:		Line 486:
	:You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		:You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
	::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. CP also has some more variation for infobox templates, namely [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. CP also has some more variation for infobox templates, namely [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:::Indeed, you have improved both [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:16, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

@@ Line 485: / Line 485: @@
 Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
 :You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
-::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
+::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. CP also has some more variation for infobox templates, namely [[Template:Officeholder]] and [[Template:Infobox person]]. —[[User:Liberaltears|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:10, August 9, 2021
Line 485:		Line 485:
	Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
	:You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		:You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
		+	::Well, whenever I go skim through WP articles, their templates just appear boring. When reading CP articles, our templates just pop out better and makes one want to examine it closely. There are also some more specific examples: for WP's infobox officeholder template, they don't use lines via <code><nowiki><hr/></nowiki></code> much which make everything look nicer, while we do. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 19:10, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:00, August 9, 2021
Line 484:		Line 484:

	Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)		Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)
		+	:You ''are'' being sarcastic: frankly, CP's templates are inferior in most ways to wikipedia's - often, they are just decade-old, unmaintained copies.... --[[User:AugustO\|AugustO]] ([[User talk:AugustO\|talk]]) 19:00, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:46, August 9, 2021
Line 480:		Line 480:
	Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:		Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
	This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.		This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.
		+
		+	== Templates/infoboxes ==
		+
		+	Another note to add is that CP templates and infoboxes are generally more well-designed than those on WP. I've noticed on numerous Wikipedia articles that their templates appear boring and filled with meaningless content. In addition, our templates/infoboxes often use bold and bright colors which stand out and look professional while those on WP use lighter hues which appear bland. —[[User:Liberaltears\|<code><span style="color:black; background:#FFABAB">'''LT'''</span></code>]]'''''[[User:Liberaltears/mail\|<sup>May D.C., his mother, and I.S. be all well!</sup>]]''''' Monday, 18:46, August 9, 2021 (EDT)

@@ Line 326: / Line 326: @@
 <blockquote>We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.</blockquote>
-I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.
+I am not doubting the research done in [[Homosexual Public Indecency Tolerated in San Francisco]] and [[Hamilton Square Baptist Church Riot]] (I believe there is a strong bias only showing one side of the story - but that is another matter and a battle I know is a losing one) but I am curious as to how an articles that are purely drawn from journalist accounts meshes with this difference.
 Personally, I believe that journalistic sources are good and necessary to have as they are often primary sources of information rather than an abstraction later.  This keeps Conservapedia a secondary source of information rather than a third or fourth level source.  But if difference #6 is to be maintained, then a critical look at those two articles and future articles that depend upon journalistic sources needs to be made. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 13:44, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:16, May 25, 2012
Line 470:		Line 470:

	I'm guessing that Conservapedia is a stickler for official names to be used as article names and references rather than any slang or alternetive names. Best example I can think of is that Conservapedia rightly uses the correct name [[Londonderry]] for the city in [[Northern Ireland]] unlike Wikipedia who caved into Irish liberals and now use the incorrect slang term "derry". Shouldn't this be included in the commandments as using correct names for things rather than alternetives. [[User:King1\|King1]] 16:14, 14 June 2010 (EDT)		I'm guessing that Conservapedia is a stickler for official names to be used as article names and references rather than any slang or alternetive names. Best example I can think of is that Conservapedia rightly uses the correct name [[Londonderry]] for the city in [[Northern Ireland]] unlike Wikipedia who caved into Irish liberals and now use the incorrect slang term "derry". Shouldn't this be included in the commandments as using correct names for things rather than alternetives. [[User:King1\|King1]] 16:14, 14 June 2010 (EDT)
		+
		+	== 13 ==
		+
		+	Wikipedia uses them to encourage new users to edit and help improve articles. Also distracting stub templates? I hardly consider:
		+	This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. On the bottom the page distracting.

	== 13 ==		== 13 ==

@@ Line 465: / Line 465: @@
 :About half the time I try to correct something biased with neutral prose, they'll turn around and say, "You're not at Conservapedia." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:11, 15 April 2011 (EDT)
 == Official names ==
 I'm guessing that Conservapedia is a stickler for official names to be used as article names and references rather than any slang or alternetive names. Best example I can think of is that Conservapedia rightly uses the correct name [[Londonderry]] for the city in [[Northern Ireland]] unlike Wikipedia who caved into Irish liberals and now use the incorrect slang term "derry". Shouldn't this be included in the commandments as using correct names for things rather than alternetives. [[User:King1|King1]] 16:14, 14 June 2010 (EDT)