User talk:Drew R. Smith

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

			User:Drew R. Smith/Sandboxes	User:Drew R. Smith/monobook.js
User	Talk	Contributions	Sandboxes	monobook.js

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

 Where Drew lives it is approximately: 02:04

Drew R. Smith

Current talk page

My archives are done by topic, not date. General - Template - Manuel of Style - Hawaii

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Tools and Communication

• My Userpage
• My Talkpage
• Forums
• My Watchlist
• Recent Changes
• Restoration Projects
• Media Projects
• My Contribs
• My Sandboxes
• Charter Drafting Election

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

• All Images

Subpages

• Sandbox
• Sandbox2
• Sandbox3
• Sandbox4
• Sandbox5
• Header
• Talk Header
• Sidebar
• To Do List
• My Articles
• familytree.js
• My monobook.js

Archives

• Hawaii Archive
• MOSArchive
• Templates Archive
• General Archive

a question for you

First, what prompted the question: The Mauna Kea article calls the big island and the state it's in "Hawaiʻi". This strikes me as not quite right, but I wanted to ask you before I make changes. It makes sense to me that the island's named would be written using glottal stops because it is named in the Hawaiian language. I don't know about the name of the state, though, because the webpage for the state government uses a glottal stop for the County of Hawai'i but not for it's own name (scan this page, for example). Neither does the state constitution itself use glottal stops to refer to the state, although the title that appears at the top of a web browser for the online version of the constitution does use it. --Joe Quick 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This branch of the government uses both side by side! Look at the text curved around the state seal at the top of the page and then at the seal itself. --Joe Quick 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of glottal stops today is tricky business. The U.S. Government doesn't recognize the glottal stop as a real letter, so when you are talking about the modern "State of Hawaii" in an "official" (i.e. government) way, the glottal stop is usually omitted. The government here in Hawaii does recognize the importance of the glottal stop, so most of their websites and documents do include it.

On the other hand, the constitution was written between the creation of the Hawaiian alphabet and the adoption of the glottal stop, so you won't see it there either. The constitution you're linking is different than the one I was talking about. I thought you meant the original one written by native Hawaiians with the help of the missionaries.

For CZ use, I'd say use glottal stops for everything that needs them except when referring to Hawaii as a united state. Examples, Ancient Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi (island), State of Hawaii, Hawaiʻian Monarchy. I've also heard the monarchy/kingdom reffered to as the "sovereign state of Hawaiʻi", but it's not widely used.

Hope this helps. Drew R. Smith 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had already made the distinction in the article. I usually write the article first and add glottal stops afterwards. Apparently I only did the intro, and did it wrong. It's fixed now. Drew R. Smith 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a question for you. What do you think of the coordinates template at the top of the Mauna Kea article? I got the idea from WP, but ours functions quite differently than theirs, and in my opinion, better. Drew R. Smith 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The uses you suggest are exactly what my gut told me but I learned a lot about not listening to your gut from a certain leader who was in office between 2000 and 2008... Thanks for clearing that up.

I like the idea of the coordinates but they seem a little intrusive in that particular spot. Maybe it should go in the infobox.--Joe Quick 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know if I can do that... Might be difficult, but I'll try... Can't promise anything, ok? Drew R. Smith 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe. For all my sarcasm above, it actually was more difficult than I had originally thought. I had to change the article, the infobox, and the template. But I do think it looks better now. Drew R. Smith 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks really good. I'm going to try to find some time to read the article in more detail soon. --Joe Quick 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete problem

No, it is not solved. I restored it. You use the r template. That means you transclude the Definition subpage - and this page does not exist! Peter Schmitt 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Hi Drew,

Please go back to all your new speedy delete requests and put both a reason in and your name -- otherwise I'm not certain whether to delete them or not. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I was trying to help figure out the problem with the speedy delete template, but I gave up because it was beyond me. I'll go mark the ones I created. Drew R. Smith 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take over as Administrator of the "New Draft of the Week" and the "Article of the Week"?

Hi, Drew. I've been doing the transclusion of articles and the weekly change over for some months now ... and I'm looking for someone to take over. Would you please do so? I would appreciate it very much.

All you have to do is add your name as an Adminstrator. I would be happy to help if you run into any problems and Daniel Mietchen will also help you if asked. Milton Beychok 04:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I could do it. And I really wouldn't mind either. The only thing is, I don't think I'd be able to do the changeover at the same time you've been doing it because of my work schedule. If thats not a problem, and as long as I can get some help I'll give it a go. Drew R. Smith 09:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with doing the weekly change at some other time or even some other day. The steps involved include:

• When someone makes a new nomination for AOTW, check that it is either an approved or a status 1 article. For new NDOTW nominations, check the date of creation.

• For new nominations of either AOTW or NDOTW, do the transclusion so that the article appears in the transcluded section as it would appear on the CZ Welcome page when and if it is a winner. Daniel Meitchen's instructions for that are here. One addition to his instruction is that references should not be included in the transcluded part of the article. Eliminate them by enclosing them between two <noinclude>s.

• After making the weekly change, go back to past week's winners and remove the transclusion tags.

• The messiest part is that after adding the transclusion tags on the Edit page of a nominated article, the article must be saved before you can see it on the AOTW or NDOTW page to see whether it is too long or too short. If it is, then you have to go back to the article's Edit page, change where the final transclusion tag is placed and check the length again on the AOTW and NDOTW page. I try to make the article fit into no more than the height of my 19-inch monitor.

Thats about it. The only problem right now is that there are no new nominees for either the AOTW or the NDOTW. Thanks for your cooperation. Milton Beychok 13:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, count me in. I'll probably end up doing the change later than you did it, but it will still be thursday. Well, due to time differences, it would still be wednesday for me, but then again, its always been changed on wednesday for me. Of course, with my late scheduling at work, I could probably just wait one more hour and call it Thursday 12:00am Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time... Drew R. Smith 13:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, on the rare occasion that I'm scheduled to work in the morning instead of at night on the day of the change over, could I ask you to do it instead? Drew R. Smith 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Milton Beychok 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I responded to your post on my Talk page about my Image Gallery 3

Hi, Drew ... just want to let you know that I responded to your post on my Talk page about my Image Gallery 3. Regards, Milton Beychok 05:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for verifying those images I uploaded. I don't know how much work would be entailed, but it would be very nice if all uploaded images had a link to the original permissions pages (for those that required permission to be furnished by the uploader) ... so that anyone could verify the permission, if needed. Milton Beychok 01:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Charter drafting candidacy

Hi Drew,

Thanks for accepting your nomination to be a candidate for election to the drafting committee for the Citizendium charter.

If you'd like, there is a provision in the plan that provides a place for you to compose a position statement. You are not required to do this in order to be a candidate for election to the committee, but it would be helpful to others during the voting period. Even if you don't compose a statement before the election period concludes, should you be elected it might be helpful for other members of the committee to know what you feel are the most important issues to address with the draft. You can find a red link to the page where you can write your statement here, along with instructions for doing so.

If you have any questions, just let me know. --Joe Quick 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chem infobox

Drew, could you please revert Template:Chem infobox back to its original, rather than pointing to your new version which I do not like. I am pretty much single handedly populating the drug and chemical pages with images etc. I don't remember exactly what our old version looked like that I worked out with several people more than a year ago. Thanks, David E. Volk 13:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, though it looks pretty much the same. My intent was to convert the original Chem Infobox to use the Infobox template. I tried to keep it as close to the original as possible. Drew R. Smith 07:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks right up your alley!

Drew, take a look at the CZ Talk:Bot policy. Can you fix my attempt at a template with a table CZ:Bot status. I need you! D. Matt Innis 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I've followed up on my talk page! Thanks in advance.. D. Matt Innis 02:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again on my talk, and no problem with leaving a message on your talk - I'm the same way. D. Matt Innis 03:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Images without copyright info

Drew, you need to fill in the copyright information for all of those images you are uploading, otherwise the image gods will simply delete them. David E. Volk 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I already uploaded the images as .png's, but decided I'd rather use .gif's. I forgot that uploading a file with a different filetype isn't the same as uploading a new version of the same file. Drew R. Smith 22:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Forgotten Soldier Image

Hi Drew,

Thanks for taking my request under consideration. I've been leaning towards the most recent publishing but I've also come across the original French version. Not sure which one to use, what's your take? Can both be used in the article to signify the original publishing and perhaps even the first English publishing? --Mehar Gill 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you get too far along with various image projects, make sure that you would have the right to insert one or more images. Try checking with User:Stephen Ewen about particular images -- if you're lucky, he may find time to get back to you -- he is/was our resident expert on the subject. Hayford Peirce 23:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@ Mehar Gill - From what I'm seeing on the publisher's website, they seem very amenable to giving permission to use images upon request. If we go that route, asking for permission, we could specifically request both versions and if permission is granted, we could use both versions. If we decide to use fair use rationale you would probably have to pick one or the other.

@ Hayford Peirce - I agree, Stephen is/was quite knowledgeable in the subject. Unfortunately he is quite inactive these days, and I'm trying to pick up where he left off. Drew R. Smith 00:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hayford, good idea, if Stephen isn't very active anymore is there anyone else who can help us?

Drew: Which one would be preferable according to Citizendium policy? Perhaps I am mixing my wiki's up, but are originals not preferred? --Mehar Gill 00:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's entirely up to user preference. By law, both are an accurate representation of the book. Both are usable under fair use. Personally I like the newer one better, but only due to aesthetic preferences. Again though, if you want both, and not small blurry ones, I can write an e-mail to the publisher. You can even upload and use them both in the meantime, with a note attached saying that permission has been requested. I can walk you through that or even do it for you if you want. Drew R. Smith 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can go with the newer one, can you upload it? I'm familiar with using the "upload form" but asking the publisher for request is something I need to pick up on. --Mehar Gill 00:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Will upload in a few moments. Just to clarify, did you want to use fair use, or do you want me to ask for permission to use it? Drew R. Smith 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)