Forum:"comparison" "side by side" articles.

< Index | RW Article discussion

I've noticed that we have tons of "side by side" articles now, ripping apart various publications from various idiots who oppose abortion, gay rights, science, etc. Has anyone considered putting something in the name of these articles that distinguishes them from info articles? I was going to a page about what i thought was a topic, only to find the page was a title of a publication, and the RW article was a great side by side debunking. I will well be off my rocker for thinking this is needed. :-) En attendant Godot 19:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

They're all in this category. Dunno what else could be done to distinguish 'em Pippa (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, then. I was just not used to seeing them, i guess. thanks. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Good idea WFG. Not all users are going to navigate through the category and even then it's not immediately apparently what the nature of the article is. A prefix like "An RW side-by-side critique:" would identify the nature of the article as well as open up the name of the article/book/tract for a meta-treatment in addition to the side by side if anyone cares to write one. 21:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking something like the "namespace"... but the problem is that these are such good articles and in cases so compelling, that they really need to be in the mainspace.En attendant Godot 21:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Add to Template:WIGO NAV? Pippa (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think something in the title needs to set them off from articles that are merely about the subject. Why can't we just create a pseudo-namespace by using a prefix like I suggested? Everything would be searchable in mainspace. 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

is Evidence for God's existence....

Is Evidence for God's existence a side by side article? I ask, cause i just read it (it was on the recent change, so i looked) and it's a much cleaner style. I really love this particular visual line up. just curious...En attendant Godot 21:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a side by side of a snapshot from 2 years ago of Philip Rayment's shitty aSK article by the same name. 21:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Shucky darns. it was so clean, without boxes. ;-) En attendant Godot 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

It's just got some different CSS formatting, I think. It's beyond me. Pippa (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The box comes from this line: <div style="border: 1px solid black; padding: 1ex; width: 95%; margin: auto"> Thunderkatz^Ho! 21:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)