Category talk:Anticreation response

Response filename convention
I've been considering the best convention to be used for the "response" filenames. The responses to EvoWiki and Talk.Origins should both use the same filename convention. This needs to be carefully considered before I start changing the Talk.Origins responses to Creationist claims from the current alphanumeric file names.

The Transitional forms responses will also need to be changed to match this convention. Some have filenames like Primates, Bats, etc., which certainly must be changed.

I'm thinking the convention: TalkOrigins:primates would be best. This convention would easily distiguish it as a response to that site.

Or in the EvoWiki case creation Or What Creation Is

Any thoughts?--Chris Ashcraft 19:58, 29 December 2005 (GMT)


 * Great idea. I think those will look very, very elegent.  Does an admin have to set up the "Evowiki:" and "TalkOrigins:" namespaces?  Ungtss 19:59, 29 December 2005 (GMT)

I dont thinks so, but I dont really understand the significance of the name space. Except, while researching this I encountered the fact that namespaces other than the main are restricted from the search engine. It prevents discussion pages and the like from coming up in a search. We definately wouldn't want that for these files.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Namespace

Other possible conventions:


 * TalkOrigins-Primates
 * TalkOrigins - Primates
 * (TalkOrigins) Primates - I'm kind of liking this. The title stands apart better.

Anything else?
 * Those all look good to me -- the second is my favorite, but the third is good too. Ungtss 01:11, 30 December 2005 (GMT)

--Chris Ashcraft 00:56, 30 December 2005 (GMT)

The second looks nice. But they call themselves Talk.Origins, after the newsgroup. The Talk.Origins_Archive page has it written this way. PrometheusX303 20:23, 30 December 2005 (GMT)

I know. I actually had the dot in there when I first placed these suggested conventions on this page, but I subsequently removed it to simplify the title. "talk.origins:primates" as a title just seems confusing. The hyphen "Talk.Origins - primates" is better I guess, but I'm still thinking the (brackets) help separate the site originator and title better than a hyphen. Some of these titles are really long.

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=Creationist_claims


 * Talk.Origins - Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview
 * (Talk.Origins) Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview

An alternative would be to place the site after the title.


 * Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview - Talk.Origins
 * Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview (Talk.Origins)

I also note that there are a large number of titles where the first 2 words are hyphenated, whereas only 1 filename contains a bracket.


 * Talk.Origins - Over-specialization with no adaptive value sometimes occurs
 * (Talk.Origins) Over-specialization with no adaptive value sometimes occurs

--Chris Ashcraft 20:54, 30 December 2005 (GMT)

OK - lets go with the brackets. I think it will help set apart the title from the originating site better.

The Talk.Origins articles should be redirected to a similar title.

--Chris Ashcraft 14:42, 13 January 2006 (GMT)


 * I agree. I just never got around to saying it.  BTW.  Not to be anal about it, but I thought these  were parenthesis and these [] were brackets. PrometheusX303 22:45, 13 January 2006 (GMT)

Filename format change
We are going to be changing all of the response filenames to the following format. Currently the originating source/site is first in the filename for most of these, absent from some, and last in a few of the newer response projects. The source first naming convention does not allow for alphabetizing.


 * The article title first (originating source here)

i.e. (Talk.Origins) No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared is being moved to No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared (Talk.Origins)

It may take several days to finish the moves, but now that the Index of Creationist Claims is finished, this cleanup is a needed improvement. All future response articles should be formatted accordingly.

Join in to help if you want... --Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)


 * A large number of double redirects has already started piling up due to this renaming project. We will be taking care of these concurrently, but you can help by fixing some along with us.--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Adding link to Index to creationist claims on this page
Can I add a link to the index to creationist claims page on this page because the claims here are not organised, or is it possible to include a ling to the index to creationist claims on the main page?

-- RichardTTalk 18:46, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

YouTube Rebuttals?
There are several channels on YouTube that may be worth responding to. I was thinking about making a rebuttal to Thunderf00t, gogreen18, evid3nc3 and possibly other channels that have several million views or more. What does everyone think? Should I respond to the more scientific ones or should I include the theological ones too? Shinydarkrai94 00:23, 15 February 2011 (PST)