Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Evident"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→obvious and/or undisputed: I disagree) |
(update) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: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. | :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 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> template, as has happened here in the past. | :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 <nowiki>{{fact}}</nowiki> 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.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:15, 18 April 2012 (EDT) | + | :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.--[[User:CPalmer|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.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:20, 18 April 2012 (EDT) | |
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
Revision as of 08:20, April 18, 2012
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)