Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election has begun. Ask questions, read slogans, and (un)endorse candidates!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

RationalWiki talk:Contents

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)

I've put up a link to the image gallery, but take it down again if it's going to cause bandwidth issues. -- Stevo (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

complaint, beotches[edit]

Two files were just added to the "front page" section of this template, and although they are both very interesting, they both contain typos. Can you dudes at least ask me to proofread them (I don't mind) before making them "high profile"? And, also, shouldn't they also be catted as "best of RW" if they belong in the TOC? Thank you, humanbe in 00:07, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Could someone help me add a "logic" portal in which to include, condense, and otherwise clarify our scattered articles on logical fallacy, assessing pseudosci, etc.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 10:57, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Easily, yes. I have a preveiwed version ready to save, but before I do, there should be at least one article catted as "best of logic". Someone do that & I'll save (and test) the "new" version of the TOC. humanbe in 17:30, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
Also, the "logic" cat seems to be missing many of its potential members. Gotta get them catted, too. humanbe in 17:32, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
I added "quote mining" to logic and best of; added the logic "portal" stuff between science and religion. TOC works for me, as does the mainpage version, others may wish to test also. humanbe in 17:41, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

2008 Prez 'lekshun[edit]

Does anyone think adding a 2008 US Presidential Election portal might be a good idea on the Front Page? DogP 19:20, 10 January 2008 (EST)

HHHmmm, not sure. But it might make sense to link the electdays blurbs to the main article, which is pretty much a portal to everything we have, isn't it? (or could have links added to make it so?) humanUser talk:Human 19:34, 10 January 2008 (EST)

Revamp?[edit]

As this is linked to on the welcome template, is it worth giving it a facelift? ArmondikoVpostate 11:58, 18 February 2009 (EST)

Definitely. I think the WIGO buttons should go at the top, & maybe some other navigation boxes &/or popular links, + some text explaining that these are a random selection of "best of" articles. Obliquely presenting them as "contents" sortof implies that this is all we've got. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a good place to use Armondikov's icons -- Nx / talk 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
That's what they're there for. I have one for politics in the works but can't decide. There's one with a box and stylised X (i.e., a voting form) or a cheesy "City Hall" type one. The other potential is to have the former for "politics" and the latter for "law" but I can't say we have enough "law" to make it relevant". I have uploaded the one for the internet, though. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fun and Recipes[edit]

Should the link for those 2 point to namespaces instead? Thieh 17:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

They do, don't they? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Better solution, remove them. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 00:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia trimming[edit]

So, as was pointed out, about a third of this is CP. Perhaps that could be reduced to a small core of articles, say the portal itself, Andrew, The relativity article, and the Lenski affair perhaps? ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, why?
  • How much traffic is generated by searches for conservapedia or even more specific idiocies?
  • At least you should be able to find for each of the links which you want to delete another link to a better, more informative non-CP page.
  • We should grow out of our Conservapedia-centric beginnings, not shrink out.
larronsicut fur in nocte 05:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Point 3 is what I wanted to say. Make for featured content to drown CP out. Pi 3:14 (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
There is plenty, the problem is that the Best of... cats are pretty defunct. Problem solved. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 12:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The fact still remains that things like WIGO CP attract 10x the votes that WIGO World or Clogs does. As much as the post-CP n00bs don't "get it" the fact remains that this site was built on CP and most of our traffic - and new members - are CP-related. Simply deleting everything CP-related isn't going to fix that. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You crack me up, the voting is pointless, always has been pointless and likely always will be pointless. And your traffic arguement was debunked last year when the veiw stats were pulled [1]. By the veiw/traffic logic we should be promoting RNS's talk page, it has 1 million veiws, more than the Saloon Bar. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 13:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. Unless there's a whole bunch of bots voting for WIGO CP it's clear that it's viewed more often than the others combined. Just because you're a n00b who came late to the party and doesn't understand it, doesn't mean this site must strip itself of the very reason it exists. In addition, look at the "how I found RW" page and see what the proportion of "found via CP" members is. Yes, there is a lot of junk CP stuff. But that doesn't mean getting rid of everything. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 13:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
And the wigos do what exactly? Act as a glorified news ticker. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 13:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh dear, it's like arguing with a potato. --PsyGremlinHable! 13:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense, potatoes don't respond. ТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 13:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
They're a fun, unique part of the site, and act as an at-a-glance way of finding the best bits for their subjects. As a new user, I can honestly say I've spent more time looking at WIGOs and Best Ofs than any other part of the site.
(ec)I don't understand this mind set that deleting content improves a site. You encounter the same attitude at Wikipedia quite a lot and it doesn't make sense there either. Prodigal (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Deleting content that adds to a site is useless, yes. But the CP content makes us look like 5 year old twats. We make fun of someone, which is what it is, and then do it again, and again, and once more. It makes us look obsessed. If that obsession were over something that people actually take seriously, used for information, or KNOW ABOUT, then it would have a point. If we were making fun of (or even criticizing at all, with 1/100 the energy) something like CMI, or Ken Ham, or Mitt Romney - people who not only say stupid things, but who's "stupid things" actually matter - then it would make sense. Andy is a fool, on a fool's errand, that OTHER FOOLS even think is too foolish for them to play with. It is truly like shooting fish in a barrel. That we do this, is sad. That we make it obvious we love doing it, is sadder. that we are PROUD of our efforts to mock and ridicule something that itself is a walking joke, is just pathatic. That is why losing articles on CP is a good thing. If you want to be taken seriously at least. Green mowse.pngGodot 13:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifТyrannisAn iron, but caring, fist 13:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


  • the list Special:PopularPages contains only pages in the main name-space. Nevertheless, you find under the top-10 the following pages related to Conservervapedia: (5) Lenski affair (7) Andrew Schlafly (8) Conservapedia
  • we shouldn't promote pages just because the attract much traffic, but it is foolish to delete them.
  • have a look at the page-views in Mar 2010 and Mar 2012
Mar 2012
Mar 2012
  • the number of articles in name-space CP didn't increase as much as the number of articles in the main name-space: the process of deconservapediation is ongoing, but it should not be forced!
  • if you want to get rid of our second most viewed name-space, try to make other articles more attractive
  • in my experience, shaping a place to attract the more acceptable public while trying to ignore historical structures is problematic at best.

larronsicut fur in nocte 13:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

@Godot the thing is: we all agree that Conservapedia is ridiculous. It will be harder to get some other common ground... larronsicut fur in nocte 14:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

LArron is one logical sonofabitch. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a dumbass reason to be a "group". We all agree that eating your own poop is ridiculous, too. doesn't mean it makes sense to devote time and effort to trying to get the world's adults to stop doing it. I think it's sometimes shocking, just how extreme CP gets. But it's a bit like staring at a train wreck for the lols. And if you want to do it, I suppose thats your life, but to make it so much a part of this group, makes people say "why go there? no one cares about CP but them, and it's all they ever talk about". I've had conversations with 2 people at NCSE, about our site. and they were both like "oh, yeah, the CP guys". They knew us cause of the Linski affair, but dismissed us as anything other than a troll site. a watch dog site for one single pretty much defunct obscure "other site". CP is dead, LArron. why are we spending time and effort, and our reputation on a dead site?Green mowse.pngGodot 14:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
It's clearly not dead or there wouldn't be so many votes on WIGOCP. It's also clear that there are quite a few people who are here at least in part for the CP content. It's also clear that the CP content is attracting new people to the site (I'm one, and the stories on How I Found RW show I'm not alone). You're trying to cut off your nose to spite your face, and I don't understand it at all. Prodigal (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
That's a dumbass reason to be a "group". Yes it is. But it was the reason to start this group.
CP is dead, LArron. why are we spending time and effort, and our reputation on a dead site? I agree, CP is at least dying, and it isn't that worth to look at as in our earlier days. That's why we spend less and less time on it. But I'm against pretending that we haven't spent great amounts of time and effort in the past: and they have still some *lol*s in them
Look, our focus is shifting. More than in Conservapedia, I'm interested in the ID-friendly legislation in various states, while at the same time the ID movement seems to be on a standstill: the cheap tuxedo reveals the underlying robes of creationism more and more.
But while perhaps 100% on this site will agree on the tea-party, you get perhaps 95% agreement on Mitt Romney. So I'm for gentle shifts, an evolutionary tactic, to keep most of us on board.
larronsicut fur in nocte 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, CP ain't quite dead yet: it still has a fair-sized userbase and some of the regulars are still there, and CP does give a certain amount of traffic to RW. Maybe containing the CP references to CPspace (and not shrinking it much more) and getting rid of most references in mainspace would be a good idea?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
LAaron, you should write about it. we proposed a WIGO in law type WIGO, specifically about the anti science laws. A way for people to keep up with what laws are proposed, what laws passed and what laws failed. but no one knew enough about ID an the legal realm to do that. That would bring quality attention to our site. even NCSE only really worries about laws that make it close to a vote, not just one that are proposed, and they don't have a sorta "up to date" list.Green mowse.pngGodot 14:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, that will take some time and effort :-) But why not...
And to put this in the context of the discussion above: will it be worth my while? Or will it be deleted in one or two years time when some energetic new members decide it's time to get rid of those old canards? larronsicut fur in nocte 14:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Answers research journal - highlighting[edit]

Curious, why are we not highlighting our (or mostly Steril's) Answers response each quarter. re: the above discussion - this is the kind of thing we "all agree upon", this is the kind of thing that actually has real people really reading it (the ARJ) that really needs debunked. This would be something we could show off and say "we does real works here, we does!" There are ways to focus efforts that will have a good payback. --Green mowse.pngGodot 14:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cover articles : Here?[edit]

Shouldn't all the cover articles be in the "Best of" cats, so they could appear on the front page. I suppose that would lead to some redundancy, but it's odd that things that are best of to be on the front page are not best of. sterileevolutionist story telling 05:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Contents
rationalwiki.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-30
49143
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:M4G5ZMQAIBI7ZKM5SMDG5W4CP2MLUP2T
<urn:uuid:fcf7d162-c1d2-44ab-9cbe-2c00ccdcb196>
2019-07-23T20:19:25Z
45.56.102.80
text/html
sha1:RKE6LOA6ZR4ACH4KEKGB6HJ3226V4EWY
<urn:uuid:2145fc95-f4d9-48a0-8043-d506c5637ca5>
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki_talk:Contents
response
<urn:uuid:23048868-ad5a-43b2-9cb4-592f4c080f88>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-153-172-231.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.15 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/