Conservapedia talk:Talk:PNAS Response to Letter
Wow, that's a pile o'data... now how do we make it clear what is going on? Should we "bold" or "color" everything that got deleted? I'm beginning to follow how you handled minor edits, very nice. Could they perhaps be "small"? ħuman
16:53, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Might be a good idea. I've lost so much of the formatting (of my own document version) that it's pretty difficult to tell what's happening unless you look at the source itself. At the moment, I'm tweaking the first "section" to be a prototype for the rest...
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Looking at the current state of this article, I prefer LArron's version. Confusing as LArron's is, I'm a highly visual person and like my data presented in a manner which emphasizes the visual impact of things. Pink's a bit too wall-of-textish for me.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.
- It's not finished yet, Cracker Boy :P Pink(Astronomy Domine) 17:02, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Will it be colourized in the future? Because I like color. Color is a very good thing in my book. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:09, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Comments will be green. Deletions will be red. You can be in charge of anything past the point where I'm pleased with it... deal? Pink(Astronomy Domine) 17:11, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- No problem, get it into the shape you want first. By the way, you could always edit in a "please don't work on this until I remove this note" type thing at the top while you are WIPing it into shape. ħuman 17:16, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Deal. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:19, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- No problem, get it into the shape you want first. By the way, you could always edit in a "please don't work on this until I remove this note" type thing at the top while you are WIPing it into shape. ħuman
- Comments will be green. Deletions will be red. You can be in charge of anything past the point where I'm pleased with it... deal?
- Will it be colourized in the future? Because I like color. Color is a very good thing in my book.
- It's not finished yet, Cracker Boy :P
- Looking at the current state of this article, I prefer LArron's version. Confusing as LArron's is, I'm a highly visual person and like my data presented in a manner which emphasizes the visual impact of things. Pink's a bit too wall-of-textish for me.
Hold everything!![edit]
Someone's pulled the sword from the--
It strikes me that the best way to do this formatting stuff is with templates. Can I get some feedback here? (Bear in mind that the first section is formatted how I want the rest to look, at the moment, at least) 
Pink(Astronomy Domine) 17:13, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- If you think so, go ahead. I can see how the whole bold/indent/nowiki thing would be easier that way. Although using "nowiki" from a template might get ugly. If you don't think you can make the template, describe here what you want it to do with what parameters and "someone" will probably try to help you build it. ħuman 17:15, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- (edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't have much experience with templates as a formatting tool. But, you should go with it if it makes things easier. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:17, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- By the way, the "shortcut" I often use is to make an "empty" copy of all my formatting, then copy it a lot and drop the info in where it belongs. Like a single-use real world template rather than a "wiki template". ħuman 17:23, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Oh yeah, I basically just did that. My prototype is at template:PinkDiff. The nowiki thing is puzzling me considerably, I must admit. Pink(Astronomy Domine) 17:26, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yah. Trouble is, the template itself "reads" the nowiki tags. I think if you "includeonly" the nowiki tags it might work - I know we ran across a similar problem once before. That's partly why I suggested just copying your "format" over and over again, though I guess that's harder, with the template all you have to do is type pinkdif| and then drop in an handful of |s and close the template, right? Oh, try using <nowiki> in the template? The symbols should come out right in the transclusion and make a working tag, maybe. ħuman 17:32, 25 September 2008 (EDT)
- So, there will be colors? --LArron 11:39, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
- That is my understanding, yes. See Pink's comment in section above. ħuman 15:58, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, I'm still holding everything.... --05:18, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- Hi, I've to admit that I didn't hold everything :-) I thought about a visualization of the history of wiki-articles. Here's an example for CP's article about Anagrams...
- Hi, I'm still holding everything.... --05:18, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
- That is my understanding, yes. See Pink's comment in section above. ħuman
- So, there will be colors? --LArron 11:39, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
- Yah. Trouble is, the template itself "reads" the nowiki tags. I think if you "includeonly" the nowiki tags it might work - I know we ran across a similar problem once before. That's partly why I suggested just copying your "format" over and over again, though I guess that's harder, with the template all you have to do is type pinkdif| and then drop in an handful of |s and close the template, right? Oh, try using <nowiki> in the template? The symbols should come out right in the transclusion and make a working tag, maybe. ħuman
- Oh yeah, I basically just did that. My prototype is at template:PinkDiff. The nowiki thing is puzzling me considerably, I must admit.
- By the way, the "shortcut" I often use is to make an "empty" copy of all my formatting, then copy it a lot and drop the info in where it belongs. Like a single-use real world template rather than a "wiki template". ħuman
The dots represent the paragraphs of the text, the colors indicate the degree of change between revisions. I've a nicer version which shows the corresponding entries when you move the mouse over the pic, but I can't display it here... The more contributions there are, the more crowded the pic gets:
So, to present the Talk:PNAS Response to Letter pic in an instructive format, some work has to be done. --LArron 19:50, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- That is rather nice.
ContribsTalk 19:55, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- Certainly cool looking. So a longer historied article might need to be done as several images in order not to cram things up too much? Can you do a "demo" of some segment of the PNAS response talk page so we can see how well it shows assfly's deletions? ħuman 20:24, 3 October 2008 (EDT)
- Certainly cool looking. So a longer historied article might need to be done as several images in order not to cram things up too much? Can you do a "demo" of some segment of the PNAS response talk page so we can see how well it shows assfly's deletions? ħuman
Even then, the deletions are lost in the amount of information:
Provisional Visualization of the data[edit]
Easily visible are the acts of wandalism - and Schlafly's creation of an archive (a process he often abuses to do his own bit of vandalism - e.g., the last archive of his own talk page.) --LArron 05:55, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
Status[edit]
So, what's the status of your project? --LArron 10:37, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
- Might need to go nudge Pink and remind her to get back to her task of formatting. I think she bogged down on trying to transclude "nowiki" tags via her template. ħuman 15:57, 4 October 2008 (EDT)