Talk:Institute for Creation Research
Contents |
[edit] Silver and gold
Great job, PeterL! I think this is definitely good enough for silver, probably gold as well, so I'll go ahead and set up a little vote.
Acer Blue 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The separate notes/refs sections need to be fixed first. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why?
Acer Blue 04:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not overly happy with the way that turned out, but they do need to be separate I think. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've always thought it strange that we intermix notes and references.
Acer Blue 04:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm just confused on why we need two separate types of footnotes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well one would be for supporting evidence and the other for commentary. Normally our articles toss them both together.
Acer Blue 04:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I tried the 'lower-roman' thing here but it didn't work. Did I do something wrong or does it just not work on this wiki? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 07:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that there is a need to differentiate footnotes(commentary) and references(sources).
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member
08:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well one would be for supporting evidence and the other for commentary. Normally our articles toss them both together.
- I'm just confused on why we need two separate types of footnotes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I've always thought it strange that we intermix notes and references.
- I'm not overly happy with the way that turned out, but they do need to be separate I think. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Why?
Article rating?
[edit] Bronze
[edit] Silver
- At best. It's not that great, as it is right now. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 04:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Gold
-
Acer Blue 04:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- --Dumpling (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Тytalk 12:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] What it yet needs
While I do appreciate the support for going for Gold immediately after my expansion, there are a few things the article still lacks:
- The history of the Institute - the purge(s) of non-flood supporters etc
- The talks and things that the Institute does in real life, rather than just online
- I believe they at least had a "creation museum" of their own - though it may just be a back room at their offices in Dallas
- The "Some people who have contributed "research"" section could be expanded to include short bios of people we don't have proper articles for, and
{{main}}'s for those we do
Additionally, some sections - eg the "K-12 blog," if it continues on it's interesting path - could maybe be taken out and put into their own articles, similarly to what happened to Ray Comfort in the effort to improve that article.
Anyway, that's why I said 'silver' and not 'gold.' It's exam season where I live, so I don't have as much free time as I have had, so I'm not in the position to do quite as much right at this moment - alot of that would require a degree of research beyond the 'just came my way' of the rest. I'll be back... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)