Conservapedia talk:Ask questions

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

(1) Did you know that the Login/Create Account button does not allow anyone to create an account? This looks very unprofessional and should be corrected as quickly as possible.

(2) It seems to me that this site is properly described as a "fundamentalist Protestant Christian conservative" site, rather than as a general "conservative" site. I have noticed a number of things asserted as fact with which I am sure a very large number of self-described conservatives would disagree.

Of course, one could always have a semantic, and sterile, argument about who is "really" a conservative, so let me put this assertion as a testable proposition: if we gathered together the editorial boards of the American journals calling themselves conservative (such as Modern Age, National Review, Weekly Standard, American Conservative, Chronicles, Claremont Review, to name some of the most prominent) I am confident that the overwhelming majority of the editors would disagree strongly with such (astonishing) statements as "there is no evidence for the existence of human civilizations earlier than about 3500 BC."

In the interests of political clarity, the particular kind of conservatism espoused here should be made clear.

Consider how you would feel if a group of atheist homosexual conservatives (and there are people who are homosexual atheists who call themselves conservative, and are sincere about it) were to start a "Conservative Encyclopedia" site, claiming it to be representative of conservatism in general, and put in entries such as "Conservatives are strongly for the institution of marriage, and wish to see it extended to embrace gay couples as well as straight." This would be out of order, I would think. But if they said, "Atheist Homosexual Conservatives are strongly for ..." etc then that would be a simple statement of fact, although you might well object that atheists and homosexuals should not be called conservatives regardless of their other beliefs -- but that is a different issue. What is for sure is that they would be wrong to claim their beliefs as representative of all self-described conservatives).

MediaWiki software questions

Hello! I just joined Conservapedia today (thanks, Andy!). The first thing I tried to do was to create some templates, in preparation for "porting" an article of mine from CreationWiki on the life of Joseph. And immediately I ran into some difficulties.

  1. The template processor/interpreter cannot handle "if" statements. I created a template on CreationWiki for establishing an instant external link to Bible Gateway with any passage of the Bible, in any version. I tried to "port" it here. But when I did, the "if" statements were handled as text, not as conditional statements. I had to revise my template to make all my parameters required, instead of having defaults--and one parameter (language) I had to eliminate entirely.
  2. No redirects! Sooner or later you're going to have articles with more than one possible name. That's what redirects are for. Redirects should be available as a special "redirect key" in every Edit window. Does redirection even work on this project? It should--it's invaluable. (Of course, I realize that redirection can go only one step before it breaks.)
  3. No tables! Actually, I suspect that if I laid out a table, using the vertical bars, it would probably reproduce as I wanted it to. But you ought to have the Table button enabled for editing, so that someone creating a new page can get an instant table to see how to lay one out.
  4. Has anyone built any templates at all? I could not find any in the Template namespace.

I took the liberty of creating a new practice page that any editor can use to try things out. This is the rough equivalent of the "sandbox" on Wikipedia. Have a look at my two new templates! Except that with "if" statements, they could be so much better--defaulting to the whole chapter, defaulting to the KJV (or the NASB, or ASV, or whichever you prefer), and so on.

Let me know what would be required to write templates with conditionals, and about redirects, and so on.--TerryH 20:48, 5 March 2007 (EST)

New account creation

Someone (who didn't sign his question) suggested that the "Log in/create account" link did not have an account-creation button, and said that this was unprofessional. No--what might be unprofessional is saying that one can create an account automatically and then disabling that feature. Given the rampant vandalism that I already know that this site has suffered, I recommend publishing a disclaimer similar to that on CreationWiki. Namely, that automatic creation of accounts is now disabled, and if anyone wants an account, then he should apply by e-mail to someone. And then you establish a special account--say, ""--to which one may apply for membership as an editor--or else let the Bureaucrats, and maybe the Sysops as well, publish their e-mail addresses, either on their separate User pages or preferably on a special contact page. (I applied first directly to User:Aschlafly and then to the Eagle Forum in order to get my account, but I had to track down Andy's e-mail elsewhere on the Web. I will not repeat it here; that is his decision alone to make.)--TerryH 21:35, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Acceptable topics for articles and projects

In looking over some of the deletion proposals and debates on certain topics, I concluded that I ought to ask what topics are acceptable for inclusion in this project, before I blundered on like a bull in a china shop and published something that someone would only have to remove.

  1. How far may we go in discussing culture? Shall we limit our discussion to classical literature, theater, and music, for example? Shall we build a recommended reading list for students and establish a "novels project" similar to that on Wikipedia but limited to book reports on this recommended reading list? Is any discussion of specific motion picture or television projects acceptable?
  2. How far shall we take any discussion of politics? At what date should we draw a line and say, "Anything more recent than this date constitutes current controversy and is more suitable as a Debate topic than as an article on a settled issue"?
  3. Shall we discuss the transportation infrastructure of the United States or of any other country?

I've probably only scratched the surface here. I've also read the complaints against Wikipedia. In that light, I prefer to ask such things in advance.--TerryH 21:35, 5 March 2007 (EST)