CreationWiki:Coffeehouse
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Archives
|
Have something you want to discuss with other CreationWiki users?
This page is the place for general discussion about the CreationWiki, its content, setup, systemic settings, formatting, etc. For discussion on particular topics browse the article talk pages.
Before beginning:
- Please read the discussion policy regarding using the CreationWiki talk features, and the talk help page for assistance.
- Please sign your posts using the toolbar signature button
, and for creation discussion unrelated to the CreationWiki or its content, join our email list.
Contents |
Posted Discussion
Categories
I've noticed that the category system here seems to be a bit haphazard. It looks as if some categories were created quite deliberately and carefully, while many others simply appeared when somebody guessed about the correct category. Then these were grafted in where it seemed they could be made to fit, without considering duplicates and the overall Category structure. This leaves us with some categories bloated, some nearly empty, some with infinite regressions, and some with either duplicate definitions or duplicate content (or both). For example, Category:Animal and Category:Animalia both exist, and are subcategories of each other. Also, Category:Group, Category:Creationist group, Category:Creationist organization, and Category:Creationist ministry all either share a description or have mostly overlapping membership with one or more of the other categories -- some of them are subcategories of each other, as well.
I thought categories were supposed to be hierarchical: subcategories should be proper subsets of their parent categories. That is, every member of a subcategory would be such that it would go in its parent category (or categories) if the subcategory did not exist. So a visual representation of the Category tree might show branches that merge, but would not show any that loop back on themselves. If that's not the way the community wants the categories to work, I'll just "shut up and color", but if you also see it as a problem, I'd be willing to put in much of the work to get it fixed. I am a member of the four-person Category Team on a 45,000+ page wiki, so I have some experience managing an extensive Category system. I would like to help, but I don't want to step on toes or hurt feelings. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- The redundant categorization setup with the organisms is intentional. They are organized hierarchically under both their official primary taxonomic names down to Family (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family), and also their common names - although the decision to also use the common names as categories was made subsequently and is therefore less well implemented.
- Although the entire system is indeed hierarchical, there are exceptions wherein some topics are intentionally subcategories of each other. This is done if those categories are considered equivalent or "sister" topics (i.e. animalia / animals). There are also many cases where topics are officially defined as subs of each other. For example, biochemistry is considered a subfield of both biology and chemistry, while at the same time, biology and chemistry are subtopics in Biochemistry. The same holds true for Paleontologies relationship with History and Geology. --Ashcraft - (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... it looks like you've tried to design a Category system easy for beginning editors -- as long as they make a reasonable guess about what Category to use, it's likely to land on a valid choice. More experienced editors, however, find themselves on the horns of a dilemma: do we try to guess which of the related and interlocked categories is correct, taking the risk of being wrong, or do we add the article (or subcategory) to all of them, which expends extra effort and server load?
- Having redundant categories also makes things confusing for readers: Should I look for an article in Plant or Plantae? Anatomy or Human biology? Reproductive system or Sexual reproduction? Birds, Aves, or Ornithology? Organism or Taxonomy? Insect or Entomology? Some of these are sufficiently far removed from one another that a reader looking in one might not even realize that the other one exists, and assume that they had seen everything we have to offer in that subject area after perusing just one of them.
- As far as your infinite loop subcategorization, I can sort of see having the "sister" categories (animal/animalia) being linked that way (although I consider it a far from optimal solution), but I really don't understand the bio/chem/biochem loop. If I'm looking at the Biochemistry Category page, there are links to Biology and Chemistry at the bottom, since it is a subcategory of them. If I am looking at the Biology or Chemistry page, then there is a link to Biochemistry in the subcategories section of the page. Why add the redundant links created by making the more general categories subcats of the most specific one? I'm sure you've got a reason, I just don't see it. ~ MD "Webster" Otley (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Those lonely materialists
- All contributing editors must believe the universe and life on earth were created by God.
Imagine the plight of those lonely materialists who don't believe this. Where did it all come from, then? (If there was a big "bang", what caused that? Sure, infinity and eternity are hard to grasp, but how is it any harder to believe in a universe which never existed but spontaneously came into being without a First Cause?
I don't find it easy to believe in God. I do struggle from time to time, due to my empiricist upbringing. But my heart goes out to those who are "sure there is no God". They have locked themselves out and thrown away the key. Why can't they at least have an open mind? --Ed Poor 21:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Say, Ed, we have an essay system over here, same as on Conservapedia. Better yet, essays have their own namespace, named, appropriately enough, Essay. You should expand on the above and post that as an essay.--TemlakosTalk 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
More On Evolution Just So Stories
I'm new to CreationWiki though I've been studying, as an amateur, creationism/evolution for some years. I'd like to submit my page for adaptation and inclusion in the Wiki, if an editor wants to modify it to be more suitable for this Wiki. I have no copyright on this page, and release it to the Wiki - if it's considered interesting. It has references which I've found most helpful in clarifying the controversy.
http://www.geocities.com/faqshelp/EvolutionJustSoStories.html
Let me know if it's clear enough.
--Chrismac 19:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
More On Pascal's Wager - There Is A God & After-Life
I'm new to CreationWiki. I'd like to submit my page for adaptation and inclusion in the Wiki, if an editor wants to modify it to be more suitable for this Wiki. The author has given permission to upload it here, there is no copyright on this page, and I release it to the Wiki - if it's considered interesting.
http://www.geocities.com/faqshelp/PascalsWager.html
Let me know if it's clear enough.
--Chrismac 00:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- Chrismac, if you're watching this: I've read both the articles that you linked to. My biggest criticism is on their style. I appreciate your zeal, but the articles are not as clear as we would like to see. If you could rewrite them and remove the self-references (I, I, I), then you could submit them and drop me a message on my Talk page, so that I can take a look at them.
