The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

CreationWiki:Coffeehouse/archive4

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search
Coffee.jpg

Discussion.png
Add new post


Archives

  1. January 2010 - Present
  2. October 2008 - December 2010
  3. March 2008 - September 2008
  4. October 2007 - February 2008
  5. March 2007 - September 2007
  6. October 2006 - February 2007
  7. March 2006 - September 2006

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 Signature icon.png, and for creation discussion unrelated to the CreationWiki or its content, join our email list.

Posted Discussion


How do Relations Work?

Is there a page that explains how Relations work? For wiki administrators, how did you build the relation system? --Grifken 23:25, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

It uses the Semantic Mediawiki extension. We dont have a page on it, but you can read-up on it at the following. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

CreationWiki has recently upgraded its Semantic MediaWiki installation to Version 1.0 (RC2).
In-house help for SMW is under development--but for now, you can read up on SMW, how to annotate an article with relational, attributive, and other properties, how to search a semantic wiki effectively, and how to export semantic information, here. Those help files are from Ontoworld.org, the content of which is licensed under GFDL 1.2 and under a Creative Commons attributive license.--TemlakosTalk 06:29, 1 December 2007 (EST)
Update: SMW 1.0 (RC2) has been in place for nearly a month now, and offers many exciting possibilities. Some of the Help pages are up on our own site now; go to Help:Semantics to learn about Semantic MediaWiki and to get started with annotation, search, and now inline queries. That last is probably the most exciting thing you can do with SMW--it allows you to build a dynamic list or table in any article.
Be advised: SMW 1.0 (RC2) shipped with a "Date" type, but that type would be limited to annotation of events that were either current or part of recent history. We have developed our own date type, Type:Historical date, that you can use to define a property to annotate any date any time in history.--TemlakosTalk 15:09, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Separation of Footnotes

PLEASE NOTE: we are now placing footnote References and Related links under different level-2 headings.

This new policy styleguide is being implemented to strengthen our emphasis on including supporting references for article content.

It is important to isolate the references actually used in the article from other "related" links.

Also, the new <references> tag extension is incompatible with the method we have been using.

Please begin separating the links currently found under the heading titled "Related References" into different sections titled References and Related links.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Psychology/Health Sciences

How about some psychology, rehab and health science stuff?

Does it not make sence to further the expansion of Creationism to go beyond the Evolution Creation Debate into the realm of practicing all sciences from a Creationist Perspective.

Health science and Rehabilition sciences seem to me to be well in line with a Christian belief system.

I was also wondering about replicating wikipedia information so that Creation Wiki users dont have to resort to going to other places, this is of course, for science material.--Tylerdemerchant 01:49, 7 November 2007 (EST)

I'll respond here first, though Mr. Ashcraft might respond as well if my understanding is mistaken.
We don't object to going to other places--and in fact, we have Wikipedia and Conservapedia in our Interwiki tables throughout the CreationWiki family. Now if the material on another site is inaccurate, of course we want to have our own version. But some things are simply beyond our scope. We never intended to be a comprehensive encyclopedia, any more than Conservapedia intended to build a detailed set of responses to anti-creationist claims. And much of Wikipedia's content has not, so far, excited any political controversy.
We do have an article on psychology--maybe you didn't see it because you spelled it wrong. As to the rest, I'll let Mr. Ashcraft speak to that.--TemlakosTalk 08:13, 7 November 2007 (EST)
You do not appear to be very familiar with the CreationWiki content and purpose. Evolution and anticreation responses constitute only a minor portion of our efforts. The majority is science from the creationist POV.
Replicating Wikipedia content is strongly discouraged and should be considered a forbidden activity. However, using text from the U.S. national government agencies is acceptable with citation (NASA, USGS, USDA, etc.) as this material is public domain.
Firstly, I apologize if my comments seemed rude or uneducated in any way. It was a sincere question to whether or not we are including stuff unrelated to the debate and I should have read the purpose and content. Secondly, I cant believe I spelt psychology wrong :P . Lastly, about the wikipedia content. I know that all the text on wikipedia is under the GNU. The reason I was wondering, is because there are a lot of articles that could go either way, creation or evolution, and are un-biased. Is it correct to assume that Creation Wiki readers should be able to come here to read ALL their science information, so that they dont have to worry about evolution predjudices? I know that it was never intend to be a full encyclopedia, but is it intended to be a full Creation encyclopedia and Science encyclopedia?
Yes I am new to Creationwiki and please forgive me for my inadaquacies, but I intend on posting a lot of content related to health sciences and psychology, primarily in regard to Rehabilitation, physical and mental dissabilities, etc. What catagory would all of this fall into? There is no health science category as of yet.
Thanks for your patience.--Tylerdemerchant 13:05, 7 November 2007 (EST)
No need for apologies.
It is legal to use the Wikipedia content, and yes we would like to have information on ALL science and other creation apologetics subjects.
The policy regarding using Wikipedia content is also not based on potential inaccuracies on that site. We simply want the CreationWiki to be original - and not just another Wikipedia mirror (like answers.com). We generally discourage the mirroring of articles on any other site, even with author approval. But, articles can be assembled using verbatim text from U.S. national government agency material.
Most articles should be placed under 2 or more categories. "Health science" would definitely be one to use. Note that all article and category titles are lower case singular. All headings should be level 2 or below (==).

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Is CreationWiki a fascist website?

Well, according to Liberapedia, we ARE! I found this article funny.

<http://www.liberapedia.com/index.php?title=CreationWiki>--Nlawrence 23:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Not only that, but they've got some things wrong. Yes, you can e-mail an admin to get an account here. But we also have this page that provides a much more convenient way to apply for an account. And guess where it came from? From the Wikimedia Foundation--that is boilerplate MediaWiki software. Now if the Wikimedia Foundation anticipated that some wikis might want to restrict membership, why should anyone resent us for doing precisely that?
And as for being "fascistic"--well, if you read Conservapedia:Adolf Hitler, you'll find that it makes no excuses for him. Besides: Hitler was no Christian.--TemlakosTalk 10:09, 14 November 2007 (EST)
Behind the rhetoric, it seems to be reasonably accurate. Until recently, e-mail was the account request format that was most visible -- I didn't even know we had any alternate to that until yesterday. Perhaps I am more generous, but I didn't detect a great deal of resentment for that. *shrug* ~ MD Otley (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2007 (EST)
We installed the ConfirmAccount extension awhile ago, and are now updating our policy pages with links to the RequestAccount page. ConfirmAccount is now in place on our international sites, too.--TemlakosTalk 12:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)


Additional Watch List Categories

I have many articles on my watch list, but I would like to have some way of categorizing them. Some articles I simply want to watch to see if any new material is added, others I marked to watch because I felt I could return later and make a helpful correction. Yet others, I marked because I want to read them more carefully. It would help me and maybe others if there were some colored flags or hot list icons we could add so that we can differentiate between our various purposes for watching. Is there some way to do this that I am not aware of? Would there be a way of adding this capability? --John Baab 15:09, 10 December 2007 (EST)

That would require another MediaWiki extension. We haven't seen any such extension, but we're always watching MediaWiki for new extensions that might prove useful.--TemlakosTalk 15:11, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Christian skepticism

Have we ever considered a series of articles taking a skeptical look at the unscientific ideas of the New Age movement and other groups? Topics can include ghosts, chi, cryptozoology, eastern religious claims, incorrect catastrophe theories (not necessarily flood models), and aliens. But all from a Christian point of view.--Nlawrence 12:10, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Off the top of my head, I should think that sort of article would be acceptable, or even desirable. Don't forget--I wrote some articles addressing culture from a Christian POV. God-substitute, Saint Nicholas, and Extraterrestrial life spring immediately to mind--but I also recommend my articles on theater and music.
Against that background, I can't imagine that anyone would object--though I would make sure that articles addressing those subjects do not presently exist. You mentioned aliens, for example--and I assume that by alien you mean extraterrestrial scout or refugee. You will find that I addressed that in Extraterrestrial life--but you're welcome to criticize it if you think it lacks scope. Hit the "Talk" icon on that page to begin.
Incorrect catastrophe claims sounds fascinating. Would that include incorrect claims involving asteroid or meteoroid impacts on the earth or on one or more planets?--TemlakosTalk 13:21, 26 December 2007 (EST)

How about an Index of New age claims? Some ideas are not unique to the New Age community, but are very popular would include the Bermuda triangle. I could start it after I finish my critique of EvoWiki's geology.--Nlawrence 14:20, 26 December 2007 (EST)

I like the idea, though I'm sort of wondering how my views on a few of the subjects compare. I think there's likely more to "ghosts" and "aliens" than human hoaxes and superstition, even if I don't believe in the existence of wandering souls and extraterrestrial life. Has anyone read Nephilim by L. A. Marzulli? --Zephyr Axiom 14:34, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Incomplete articles

This site needs a category for articles that don't fit the description of a short article, and are more than stubs, but are still incomplete. For example, the Jacob article remained in that state for more than a year until someone finally filled in the empty headers. And sometimes someone might want to start an article but mightn't have available all the information for all the typical headers. Nightshades and Solanales spring to mind.

Citing such articles as stubs doesn't seem reasonable. But they are still incomplete. And "cleanup" doesn't fit, either, unless those articles need major changes.--TemlakosTalk 12:17, 3 January 2008 (EST)

Recommendation for cleanup

The article on the Sun still needs cleanup. I'm chasing down some facts and figures right now, and will try to rectify the naturalistic bent of the article.--TemlakosTalk 20:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Titius-Bode Law

In my brief research into astronomy, I discovered an article that prompted me to visit the question of the Titius-Bode Law. I believe that the abandonment of this Law was scientifically premature. I have an article uploaded now, with a very interesting inline query result. I welcome comments here.--TemlakosTalk 20:08, 24 January 2008 (EST)