Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Evident"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "== obvious and/or undisputed == The very use of this template at E=mc² shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}. ==References== {{reflist}}") |
(→Numbering: done.) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== obvious and/or undisputed == | == obvious and/or undisputed == | ||
The very use of this template at [[E=mc²]] shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}. | The very use of this template at [[E=mc²]] shows how bad the idea is{{evident}}. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :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. | ||
| + | :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}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Numbering == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I cannot edit the page because of spam filter. The reference to rule 13 can be updated to 14. [[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 18:51, 24 April 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Thank you, Cipe - that was well spotted. I have made the update.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:03, 30 April 2012 (EDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 15:03, April 30, 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)
References
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)