RationalWiki talk:Side-by-side

For people aspiring to create a side-by-side article with effective, traditional RW style!-α m ε σ (!) 23:22, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Great, I always kept my version on my computer, where no one else can use it... Should it have some instructions re: Essay or not? IOW, it's Essay if intended to have only one author, and should be in the Essay: namespace.  Otherwise, it should be in Conservapedia: if about CP, or the mainspace if another fool is being refuted. human be in 12:52, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Maybe a link to the main page? CЯacke ® 16:43, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Bullet points?
I think that bullet points should not be used for each individual section. They're more useful when addressing multiple points within a single section, and then numbers may be a better approach to allow readers to link the original with the response.

Here are some examples:

Betterer (numbers used to help the reader understand how the responses tie-in with the claims
If this makes sense I can update the article to include suggestions on how bullet points and numbers can be used. Ask me about our adjective 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the left side is usually the refuted article, verbatim, so we don't have control over that. -- Nx  / talk 10:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's true. In practice though I think that formatting shouldn't cause issues as long as the text itself is honestly quoted. One example of modification is when citing CP text that contains links to articles, such as Andy's habit of being unable to write the word Liberal without linkifying it. In those cases I think it's better to edit the link (cp:Liberal) so it points to the content the original author intended to reference. I'll do some test runs in sandboxes to ensure that the original content isn't being altered in a way that would misrepresent the original author. --[[Image:Concrnedresident logo.png|140px|link=User:Concernedresident|Concernedresident|baseline]]Ask me about our Suzuki 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I do agree, sadly, that reformatting the original is not really kosher. I think if something really requires what you are doing above, it should use two (or multiple) sections/subsections to keep things clear. In the above example the first version is best, although without the pointless bullet points.  00:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Do the templates actually force bullet points? They don't appear in the "example to copy" section. 00:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like they do, and that's probably not a bad thing. It makes the template for flexible, since a single box might contain a bullet point, a numbered list or plain text. -- ConcernedResident pea soup for the ladies 20:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)