Template talk:Cp

Needs work

I pasted this little beauty together out of random chunks of other templates all by myself!

It needs work:

1. right now, the article title has to match exactly. That should remain a "simple" option, ie, just type {{cp}}. But if the title is not exact, people should be able to type {{cp|namethere}} and have it "override" the first instance of "pagename" in the template.

2. I'm not sure the float to the right is solid. it works if it is the first thing in the article, but it would be better if it was not picky about that. If it still is. human^{be in} 17:56, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

This is exactly what we need! This would work a lot better than naming every page: "Refutation of XX"! MiddleMan

Haha, and thanks. Glad you like it! It's more for pages we have that are simply, ahem, different than theirs. I think the essays that are mirrored refutations should be the way they are. But, hey, people will use it however they wish. So anyway, we need to rip through the mainspace adding it to articles we know have exactly the same title. (probably best to test the link after adding) human^{be in} 18:07, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

I just ParserFunction'd it to use a parameter, if one is provided. ----Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 21:15, 31 May 2007 (CDT)

How does this work

I don't get it, I don't see the URL of Conservapedia in it anywhere.

It uses an interwiki link: For example, [[cp:Kangaroo]] creates this link: cp:Kangaroo --Sid 07:35, 7 September 2007 (CDT)

Boycott

Should we modify this for the duration of the boycott so that it directs people to some sort of warning that they are about to go to Conservapedia in violation of the above? Something along the lines of "We're currently holding a boycott of Conservapedia until x. If you still desire to go there, [[here's a link to the page you would have been sent to]]." --λινυσ^(☮) 15:20, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Good question. How about we just comment it out so nothing is transcluded? ħuman 21:46, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, commenting it out won't work, but it would leave the code in the page, which, I suppose, might be a good thing if someone was really curious. I think what you mean is wrapping it with noinclude tags. --λινυσ^(☮) 14:11, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, that's what I meant... just disappear it during a boycott. Unless you really want to write what you suggested ;) ħuman 17:24, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

"< / noinclude >" is appearing on pages where the template usually would. Is that avoidable? I don't got the skills to figure it out myself. weaseLOId^{bite me} 06:33, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I think I sorted it out anyway. weaseLOId^{bite me} 06:38, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

If there was some sort of master switch for CP boycotts then we could automaticise this using IFs. Genghis^evolving 06:51, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Temporary template

I've taken the initiative & made template: cp boycott as a temporary replacement, then linked this template to that one. This can then be simply reverted at the end of the boycott to restore the old template. I think some sort of template reminding users of the boycott is better than no template at all. + The boycott template doesn't link to CP at all. weaseLOId^{bite me} 08:11, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

It appears that now the content of that template has been simply put directly in this one, so we might want to delete it. Also, having this simply disappear was a perfectly good solution - no need to even bring CP up on various random pages during the boycott... ħuman 16:33, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, that assumes that all users are already aware of the boycott, or accessing RW via the Main Page where they will hear about. However, some users might just have their watchlist bookmarked, for example, & so log on & be unaware of the boycott. It does no harm to have this little box on a few articles throughout the site to let anybody who is browsing know about it. weaseLOId^{bite me} 16:56, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I think most users would would "care" keep up with WIGO CP and talk WIGO CP, where it is prominently announced. All having the box turn up on places like "Penis" is remind people of CP's existence. No mention at all is more in the theme of a "boycott", I think. ħuman 16:58, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Huwman. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Nobody likes nothing. I certainly wish with all my heart that it did not exist.} 17:16, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Incidentally, this one isn't on Penis - that's template: No Cp which hasn't been tampered with & still redirects to CP. If consensus is to blank this template, that one should probably be blanked as well. weaseLOId^{bite me} 17:22, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I've removed the link from it... I hope that's OK. Should that template even have a link? It only ever links to a page they've deleted, after all... <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{Nobody likes nothing. I certainly wish with all my heart that it did not exist.} 17:26, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, good point. Yes, I agree, both should be blanked during boycotts. As long as that is the consensus. And we should go in and do some edits with clear comments saying "for boycott use" and "for normal use", and put the best permalinks at cp:boycott instruction. ħuman 17:29, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Nice curves!

That is all. ħuman 06:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of this template.

I think that, in the efforts to make this whole wiki more about the mission and less about Conservapedia, it is high time that we begin to phase out the use of this template on the majority of pages. My thoughts are as follows:

• The template should ONLY be in the top right of an article when the article has DIRECT and CLEAR relevance to Conservapedia.
• The template can be used at the top right of any 'Conservapedia' section in an article. (This makes no comment on if articles should have a Conservapedia Section).
• If there is a section about fundamentalist Christian/religious right response and controversy about a topic AND the Conservapedia article is a good representation of this response, then it may go at the top right of that section.

I think that unless the use of this template meets one of these criteria, then only a link to the CP page should be included in See Also/External Links. If there's any objection to this, then the matter should be settled on a case-by-case basis on the article's talk page, as ever. ^EXTERMINATE 11:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, this seems like I'm trying to impose a site policy. I'm not. This is my proposal for how we deal with the CURRENT use of the template. If this, or a different approach, is agreed on, then I'll happily go into bot mode and do all of the editting. After that, as ever, I guess it'd be a case-by-case basis. ^EXTERMINATE 11:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

As with WP, shouldn't be used as much as it has. I agree with most of your suggestions. But re "only a link to the CP page should be included in See Also/External Links", what's the difference? If you're still going to make a single link to the CP article, why not keep it in the template? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I accept your point that using the template is similar to just linking to it, but I think it gives Conservapedia undue weight. If we had an issue, and the external links showed what a few bloggers thought, what a Cardinal thought, and a page describing the current law on the matter, then the Conservapedia link should be given equal weight to each of those, I think. ^EXTERMINATE 12:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

No! FFS! We've already been down this road once. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I agree it shouldn't be all over the place, but certainly on CP articles on the Schlafly's et al, but also things like the Great Flood, etc, where we can point to the batshit insane version. Having a link to CP's Great Flood article in 'external links' isn't the same as using the template. The template uses snark, external links doesn't. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 12:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I wholly agree that it should be on CP articles, as in my first bullet point above, and I only care about the mainspace articles on this, not CP articles. As for the majority of 'Fundamentalist point of view' matters, like the Great Flood, I think they can remain at the top right of a section if it represents a good response/defence from fundie christians, but just having them at the top right of any article which is relevant to fundamentalists and the political right makes RW just an anti-CP site, and makes the article just a refutation of the CP page. ^EXTERMINATE 12:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Leave it as it is; there's no reason to change it. Don't want to read CP? Then don't click it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying get rid of it, more of a graded approach. I just think it should only go in the top-right, and be given that level of prominence, if it's DIRECTLY CP-related, and otherwise be used if it gives a good representation of the "Other side" of the dispute, or a good view of fundamentalist, in an appropriate section. Do people really think it belongs, so prominently, at the top-right of Feminism? ^EXTERMINATE 14:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, frankly. The CP take on feminism is one of their biggest pieces of nuttery. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with SR on that example. "For those living in an alternate reality" is a pretty apt description of CP:Feminism, and the same goes for other major subjects like Barack Obama and homosexuality (which doesn't currently include this template) where the CP article is so jaw-droppingly full of crazy. Where this template doesn't really belong, but currently is, is on things like Ireland, Martin Gardner, & Inquisition, where it's really not clear why we're being pointed at a rather dry & uninteresting article at another site. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't type properly on this keyboard without taking aaaagees, will reply in length later. You guys seem pretty set on it though. :( ^EXTERMINATE 19:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘De-Conservapedifiction is a laudable goal. I endorse it. That said, I suspect it will be a cold day deep underground before this lot gets tired of ^urmmhhf"riding"^hunggghff the same old turtle. Must say it does look like a lot of fun, though. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

To throw in Human's opinion: Kill it with goat poop in the mainspace. I know people like it, but we should be asking ourselves what want from RationalWiki? As articles improve over time and we hopefully achieve dozens and dozens of gold and silver rated articles, what do we want to be? I want to see a site with a core of 100-200 solid, high quality articles directly on the mission, and I feel that throwing around this template denigrades that completely. If we have a quality article on something, we want people to read it, not go to CP for laughs. Those who know RW, but aren't regular contributors... know it as an anti-CP site, and we'll never EVER shake that and become an actual resource for people if we keep this around. Yes, it's relevant on CP articles. Yes, it can be used to represent the opinion of fundamentalists IN SOME CASES and IN AN APPROPRIATE SECTION. But for people that dislike CP, you sure seem happy to give them undue prominence. Why should we? If people want laughs from CP, then it's VERY easy to find them throughout this site. But why the hell should we be linking to CP on literally HUNDREDS of pages which don't relate to Conservapedia? Can anybody give me a good reason why the top-right of unrelated, mission-relevant articles should link to Conservapedia? Can anybody give me a reason why we should give their link prominence over a similar demonstration of the religious right's view? No. Secondly, there's a national element to this. Every single point of the RationalWiki mission is international: The points respect no borders, and are relevent to an English-speaking reader anywhere in the world. And yet these few hundred pages, in an attention-attracting template give hugely undue weight to Conservapedia - to a minority view of the extreme right-wing of American politics. ^EXTERMINATE 04:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DON'T CLICK IT THEN. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above: I'm not suggesting that this should appear on hundreds of articles; in fact, I've said that it's currently on many which it should be removed from. But there are a core of "flagship articles" at CP which are so batshit crazy that it's completely in line with the RW missions & SPOV to link to them when discussing the relevant subjects at RW. As for undue weight, 1. right-wing American politics has a pretty big impact internationally; CP may be fairly obscure, but it's representative of a lot of the views in the tea-party movement etc. & 2. we have a lot of content about the internet (bloggers, YouTubers, other wikis) so discussion of CP (even in mainspace ) remains relevant. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria in the top post of this section seem reasonable. Can we agree to visit the places where this template appears, and harmonise them with that standard? I'm willing to devote some time to that, since I really don't give two shits about CP. Relevant items in my CV include watching the poor sod sit frozen on Colbert, with an inane laugh and a bad haircut, and my being alive when his mom tried to scuttle feminism. Some occurrences may turn out to be more contentious than others, but I have faith in the RW community's ability to scale each and every molehill along the way. Your humble servant, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The criteria outlined above focus only on the RW article. It's also worth considering how entertaining &/or eye-opening the individual CP article linked to is. If/when we link to a CP, it should be because it's something of interest. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the best description has been "so if someone comes to an article, the first thing we want them to do is navigate away from the site??". Which is a pretty good argument against these templates ever appearing at the top of an article. Under the external links section is great. I'd say add more of them in that case, as we have creation wiki and wikipedia ones too. ^{d hominem} 22:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, then how about

• The template should ONLY be in the top right of an article when the article has DIRECT and CLEAR relevance to Conservapedia and the Conservapedia article is entertaining or eye-opening enough to justify such placement.
• The template can be used at the top right of any 'Conservapedia' section in an article. (This makes no comment on if articles should have a Conservapedia Section).
• If there is a section about fundamentalist Christian/religious right response and controversy about a topic AND the Conservapedia article is a good representation of this response, then it may go at the top right of that section.

Does anyone really click in an interwiki box before reading at least a little of the RW article? The "navigate-away" argument seems to be grasping at a straw, and not that convincing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have started picking off some of the lower-hanging fruit, where linking to the CP article seems like it adds nothing. Yelp if you don't like something... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with putting 'em in "External links" if it's relevant. Remove all other refs in mainspace articles. Go for it Sprocket. 23:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ta, I've moved the one on Anita Bryant's page to "See also."

Now I'm looking for a sense of the group regarding a case like Homosexual recruitment where there is now no CP page. Do we want to leave some hint that CP may have some history with that topic? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OK, I got bored sitting around and turned a bunch of blue "what links here" items to purple. There has been one objection by way of a reversion at Augusto Pinochet. I still think there is no need for his RW article to point at CP, but I will leave that the will of the mob. There are a few strays listed here and yet unattended, if someone feels decisive. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I approve on this post, or some such meme. Good work everyone. ħuman 03:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we continue to use this template?

I don't think we should be giving CP traffic any more than we must. I'd just like to open a discussion if we should keep this. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

We stopped using it years ago. It's been left on (or re-added to?) all of three mainspace articles. I'll take it off them now.

But FYI, the "let's not give them any traffic" argument is baloney. All links from RationalWiki are nofollow. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that happened Weasel? I guess I missed the memo. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 18:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)