Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Commandments"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 
*I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)
 
*I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)
 +
 +
**Yes, editing is fine, if you so wish it. But making a big rule about it is not necessary. (Had to put my opinion in again) --[[User:Katja N|Katie]] 21:17, 19 January 2007 (EST)
  
 
==Archives==
 
==Archives==
 
[[TCC Archive 1|Archive 1]]
 
[[TCC Archive 1|Archive 1]]

Revision as of 02:17, January 20, 2007

American Spelling of Words

I think we should add as a new commandment that you have to do the American spelling of words. I'm pretty sure it used to be on the homepage, but it must have been removed...I can't find it. What do you guys think? ~Deborah~

  • I agree. --TimSvendsen 19:16, 11 January 2007 (EST)
    • Why bother? You would alienate conservatives who are from Europe. And I am a little biased here because I use British spelling all the time. =D -- Katie 22:44, 18 January 2007 (EST)
      • Because we are an American encyclopedia...not British. PhilipB 22:49, 18 January 2007 (EST)
        • Point: We are an online encyclopedia which can go all over the world, including England. And if a British man had a good point that he put up on the site but used his own spelling, would we ban him? After all, he would be "breaking the Conservapedia Commandments." I just don't think making people spell things the American way should be in the rulebook. (People on this site often make spelling errors anyway)--Katie 23:06, 18 January 2007 (EST)
          • If a British guy starts using British spellings we warn him to stop... if he continues... we would block him. If people refuse to respect our rules they can go elsewhere. PS. Sorry for editing your post... I'm just trying to keep things organized. PhilipB 23:10, 18 January 2007 (EST)
            • British and American are basically the same thing. We should encourage people to use the American spelling but it is ridiculous to "block" them...After all, American is just butchered English --Katie 23:18, 18 January 2007 (EST)
              • We are not debating the issue of blocking someone for disobeying a rule (which is something we have reserved the right to do), we're debating adding an "American spellings" rule. The fact is that were an American encyclopedia so we should remain patriotic and use the American spellings for words. We can't just say that Conservapedia "encourages" or "recommends" this, because we can't enforce that. PhilipB 23:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)
              • We are talking about blocking people because when someone breaks a "Commandment", they get warned and then [perhaps] blocked... Well, I understand that this is an American encyclopedia, but realistically, it seems like such a small thing to actually create an enforceable rule about and you may unintentionally wind up alienating people who wish to contribute to the page, people who are American but do spell things the British way without realizing it (people of older generations for example who were taught that way in Catholic grammar school) If the majority of people want an official rule about this, then that's fine but who is going to go through the entire conservapedia to enforce this?? It will be a monumental task, in my opinion, as you would have to go entry by entry every single week to ensure that this commandment wasn't being violated. --Katie 23:56, 18 January 2007 (EST)
              • If we make a rule about it people will be more likely to use the American spellings. Obviously we will not block specific people without ample warning. We will not have to patrol the pages day and night to make sure... just whenever someone does an edit post on their user page a reference to the rule and they'll stop. PhilipB 00:07, 19 January 2007 (EST)
              • It appears that you are missing my point. If you make a rule about it, people will have to use the American spelling, (not be 'more likely' to) which is unfair, as many people on this site cannot even spell normally. But hey! I am sure that you all have a just reason to make a rule that is so petty. (Oh, right; "We're American" @_@ the homepage doesn't really state that we're American anyway)) Oh, and I'm sure that I am unpatriotic because I spell "favorite" like our Founding Fathers did with a 'U' ... like a Brit. --Katie 08:35, 19 January 2007 (EST)

I suggest that when anyone notices a British spelling, they should just change it to the U. S. spelling, with an edit comment like "per Conservapedia style." I think British contributors will get the idea. Brits who are familiar and comfortable with U. S. spellings can do so, those who aren't should just do their best and let others copyedit their work.

On a cooperative project, one has to be prepared to do a certain amount of cleaning up after others.

When a U. S. author is published in England or vice versa, nobody expects the author to rewrite their book in the other national style. The publisher does that for the author as part of the publishing process.

If Conservapedia's stylesheet mandates U. S. spellings, then contributors who use British spelling shouldn't object to having their work copyedited to use U. S. spellings.

Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith 10:46, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Well said Dpbsmith. I guess it would just be best to make a "Conservapedia requests" rule for this... instead of a command. What do you guys think? Thanks. PhilipB 13:47, 19 January 2007 (EST)

  • I agree with Philip and Dpbsmith. SharonS 16:20, 19 January 2007 (EST)
    • Yes, editing is fine, if you so wish it. But making a big rule about it is not necessary. (Had to put my opinion in again) --Katie 21:17, 19 January 2007 (EST)

Archives

Archive 1