Template talk:Intelligent Design: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Link to [[Creationism]]: reply |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
== Link to [[Creationism]] == |
== Link to [[Creationism]] == |
||
[[User:FeloniousMonk]] has objected to giving this template a prominent position on the [[Intelligent design]] article (which, one would thought, is the ''only'' article on all of Wikipedia where it is, by definition, blatantly obvious that the template belongs and should be most emphasized), on the grounds that it is "more specific" than the {{tl|creationism2}} template (which, I would have thought, is one of the many reasons ''why'' the ID template is much more relevant and important than the creationism one! o_O;). My attempts to work out a compromise have all been ignored and dismissed out-of-hand—I've attempted to move the creationism mere inches lower so as to give room to the even more clearly relevant ID template on the ID article, but FeloniousMonk has dismissed even the possibility of change with "don't rock the boat" status-quo-worshiping silliness, ignoring the contents of all of my arguments at [[Talk:Intelligent_design#Template_placement]] for moving the two templates slightly for the sake of the readers' benefit. I've attempted to add a link to [[Creationism]], which, based on FeloniousMonk's arguments (where he's said that we should go out of our way to emphasize that ID is a thinly-veiled [[creationism|creationist]] movement), he should be ''strongly in favor of'' even if he opposes moving the ID template to the top of the ID page, yet apparently, bizarrely enough, he reverted the change just to ''spite'' me despite it being a blatantly obviously, clear change to make (''based entirely on his own comments''!), on the assumption that ''anything'' done by anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some sneaky, nefarious tactic to get what he wants in the end. Positively the '''worst''' example of [[WP:AGF|failing to assume good faith]] I've ever seen in my two years on Wikipedia. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
[[User:FeloniousMonk]] has objected to giving this template a prominent position on the [[Intelligent design]] article (which, one would thought, is the ''only'' article on all of Wikipedia where it is, by definition, blatantly obvious that the template belongs and should be most emphasized), on the grounds that it is "more specific" than the {{tl|creationism2}} template (which, I would have thought, is one of the many reasons ''why'' the ID template is much more relevant and important than the creationism one! o_O;). My attempts to work out a compromise have all been ignored and dismissed out-of-hand—I've attempted to move the creationism mere inches lower so as to give room to the even more clearly relevant ID template on the ID article, but FeloniousMonk has dismissed even the possibility of change with "don't rock the boat" status-quo-worshiping silliness, ignoring the contents of all of my arguments at [[Talk:Intelligent_design#Template_placement]] for moving the two templates slightly for the sake of the readers' benefit. I've attempted to add a link to [[Creationism]], which, based on FeloniousMonk's arguments (where he's said that we should go out of our way to emphasize that ID is a thinly-veiled [[creationism|creationist]] movement), he should be ''strongly in favor of'' even if he opposes moving the ID template to the top of the ID page, yet apparently, bizarrely enough, he reverted the change just to ''spite'' me despite it being a blatantly obviously, clear change to make (''based entirely on his own comments''!), on the assumption that ''anything'' done by anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some sneaky, nefarious tactic to get what he wants in the end. Positively the '''worst''' example of [[WP:AGF|failing to assume good faith]] I've ever seen in my two years on Wikipedia. -[[User:Silence|Silence]] 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Could it be that while ID is a subset of Creationism, Creationism is not a subset of ID? |
|||
:BTW, AGF works both way -- I see no such assumption on your part. Oh wait! could that be because you're the victim and FM is the oppressor? Oppressed editors of the world unite? Please, the assumption of good faith, like respect, is earned. [[User:Jim62sch|<font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">•Jim</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="F4C430">62</font><font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch•</font>]] 09:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 09:27, 28 June 2006
I yanked the edit button, which made the tamplate much tighter.--ghost 30 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)
ordering
what's the logic? --goethean ॐ 19:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- The logic is that the Intelligent design movement is driven by the Discovery Institute, who's "science" branch is the Center for Science and Culture, which authored and is guided by the Wedge strategy, which advocates the Teach the controversy campaign. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
id="toc"
The parameter id="toc" causes this template to be suppressed whenever the user has tables of content suppressed. As far as I can tell, none of the similar infoboxes choose to be suppressed that way. If my own user experience is typical, I want to suppress the system-generated tables of contents at the top of the article because they get in my way and don't add materially to my reading experience. But the infobox of related links is useful and should show.
I don't know what id is appropriate, though, so I just took the parameter out completely. Hope that doesn't break something else... Rossami (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- Seems to be fine. FeloniousMonk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Link to Creationism
User:FeloniousMonk has objected to giving this template a prominent position on the Intelligent design article (which, one would thought, is the only article on all of Wikipedia where it is, by definition, blatantly obvious that the template belongs and should be most emphasized), on the grounds that it is "more specific" than the {{creationism2}} template (which, I would have thought, is one of the many reasons why the ID template is much more relevant and important than the creationism one! o_O;). My attempts to work out a compromise have all been ignored and dismissed out-of-hand—I've attempted to move the creationism mere inches lower so as to give room to the even more clearly relevant ID template on the ID article, but FeloniousMonk has dismissed even the possibility of change with "don't rock the boat" status-quo-worshiping silliness, ignoring the contents of all of my arguments at Talk:Intelligent_design#Template_placement for moving the two templates slightly for the sake of the readers' benefit. I've attempted to add a link to Creationism, which, based on FeloniousMonk's arguments (where he's said that we should go out of our way to emphasize that ID is a thinly-veiled creationist movement), he should be strongly in favor of even if he opposes moving the ID template to the top of the ID page, yet apparently, bizarrely enough, he reverted the change just to spite me despite it being a blatantly obviously, clear change to make (based entirely on his own comments!), on the assumption that anything done by anyone who disagrees with you must be part of some sneaky, nefarious tactic to get what he wants in the end. Positively the worst example of failing to assume good faith I've ever seen in my two years on Wikipedia. -Silence 04:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Could it be that while ID is a subset of Creationism, Creationism is not a subset of ID?
- BTW, AGF works both way -- I see no such assumption on your part. Oh wait! could that be because you're the victim and FM is the oppressor? Oppressed editors of the world unite? Please, the assumption of good faith, like respect, is earned. •Jim62sch• 09:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)