User talk:Dalton Holland Baptista

NOTICE: This user is unlikely to respond to questions or comments placed here.

This could be because of any of the following:

*Their registered email address is no longer working (or is rejecting Citizendium mail);

*The account has been closed;

*The user is otherwise inactive on the wiki.

The user may remove this template at any time.

Welcome!

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started for other helpful introductory pages. It is essential for you as an editor to join the Citizendium-Editors (broadcast) mailing list in order to stay abreast of editor-related issues, as well as the mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. Larry Sanger 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dalton (or Holland?), don't worry about the specifics of CZ. You can learn as you go. A good starting point for you would be to bring articles from wikipedia over here that you think are high quality. Then you can get the feel of the place here by reformating the articles. Let me know if you have any questions. Chris Day 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, this place is much more quiet than wikipedia and we are very embryonic. On the other hand this has the advantage that we can really make major changes in how things are presented. The tree of life project here had a little lease of life but the original contributors have drifted off, I suspect due to the lack of a critical mass. in short, if you have some unique ideas on how to present botany articles feel free to experiment, you are not obligated to follow the wikipedia model. If you have a look in the forums you will fin there were a few discussion with respect to naming conventions. I think those will be of interest to you. I'll try and track down some specific links for you. Chris Day 18:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

Just a heads up, you can't customise them here the same way as at wikipedia. So don't pull your hair out trying to find out how to do it. Chris Day 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

experiment

I have been experimenting with masterlists on the Leptotes/Related Articles related articles page, see Leptotes bicolor/Related Articles/Masterlist and Leptotes/Related Articles/Masterlist. One difference between wikipedia and citizendium is that we do not use categories. Instead we try and use the Related Articles subpages to give a navigational web. However, when large lists are repeated on multiple pages it makes more sense to transclude them from a masterlist location.

We use the {{R}} template on the Related Articles subpages too; it transcludes a universal definition and provides a link to edit that defintion ([e]) as well as a link to the Related Articles subpage associated with that term ([r]). By clicking through using the [r] links you can envisage how one can wander up, down and across the information within the hierarchy. You can see how this works by clicking the [r] link after Leptotes bicolor on the Leptotes/Related Articles subpages. It's a little complicated and any comments from a new comer on how to improve the user friendliness is very welcome. Chris Day 04:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

Thanks for the note, a lot to digest. I like the idea of visual navigation too. Did you note I started a gallery at Leptotes/Gallery? i think this subpage option is better than the wikipedia alternatives since more pictures can be added than is reasonable on a wikipedia article. With regard to visual navigation, another thing I have been experimenting with is using the imagemap feature. You can see some experiments at:

Template:CEC - mouse over the content, although it is not complete, just a proof of concept.

Template:Biology open house

My thinking was that pictures of metabolic pathways could be clickable, but that could work for phylogenies, concept maps or photomontages too. With respect to navigation tools and usability you can see one discussion at CZ_Talk:Usability. It is a little chaotic but I think that might be quite represent our thoughts at present. Any input you have will be great, obviously you have thought about this and developed tools yourself. Chris Day 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

With regard to Archaea/Taxonomy‎, you'll note that using that subpage format does not work for you. We would call that an experimental subpage as it is not hardwired into the subpages template. One way around this is to add Taxonomy to the tab1 field in the metadata. Then you will find it works fine. Another option is to go with Archaea/Catalogs/Taxonomy‎. For more information of this see the proposal at CZ:Proposals/Should we allow article specific subpages?. Chris Day 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I was trying to figure it out. Well, someone needs to erase it now. Dalton Holland Baptista 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't want it? Seems like that might be a worthwhile experiment? See this edit for how to make something like that functional. Chris Day 04:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do want it, just thought it might be a different url, but then it is perfect now. BTW I was looking fot the tab one field, didn't realize I had to add it, good that you've done it. Well, Paulo went to bed now, so tomorrow he will merge all info from both articles and we will see how it works. Dalton Holland Baptista 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This was an older article and when the metadata was created it did not have sub fields or tab fields. Both these concepts are relatively new. Any metadata page created recently will have those fields. Chris Day 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chris, I'm heading to bed too, just wanted to say I'm enjoying very much the experience with CZ. It's so much better than writing on WP. I'm sure as I learn all the possibilities will like even more. Few days ago I found another good editor from PT-WP who registered on CZ long ago Rafael Azevedo I'll ask him why he stopped writing here. He is a pretty good author of classical music and history articles. Maybe he will be back. See you tomorrow. Dalton Holland Baptista 05:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Orchids

Hi Dalton!

Chris Day pointed out your excellent work at orchid, so I'm saying hello.

I wonder if it would be possible for you to edit out Wikipedia stuff so that this is a CZ original? If, as I suspect, you added the WP notice for your own original work at Wikipedia, then it takes a WP Author notice, not a WP one. Make sense?

Aleta Curry 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hey!

Hehe... I'm always following the genius! It's time to attempt new challenges (pena que em inglês, ainda!). Regards! Vinicius Siqueira 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Leptotes was selected as the Archive:New Draft of the Week and is featured on the main page! --Todd Coles 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Dalton, I removed the Botany category with Chris' name on it from your user page, first because it shouldn't have Chris' name on it, and second, only one of these people can add an editor category to a user page.. if you want one, please feel free to contact them and they can follow up from there. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay to add your own name to a workgroup editor category? Well that is certainly a good question! As a constable, I just look out for people adding themselves as editors to workgroups (you can imagine why), but I haven't been presented with this particular scenerio - an editor placing himself in a subworkgroup (if that is what we are talking about). This is probably something that needs at least some discussion, particularly if we want constables to be watching for these things. I'll add the question to the thread on subworkgroups on the forums. D. Matt Innis 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I had not really thought about this in much detail. When we initially started discussing the role of editors and authors in a subgroup we thought that the designation was more to indicate "which members happen to be editor in a workgroup". The function of an editor in a subgroup does not exist. So in theory, anyone that is already an editor can add a subgroup category as an editor too; this should not need constables. I agree that placing editor category's for workgroups is a totally different matter. Does that make sense Matt? Is there a better way to organise this, i can see how this could get very confusing and might give the wrong impression that people can add workgroup editor categories too. Chris Day 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One solution is to just have a member category rather than an author and editor category. Chris Day 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It does make sense, Chris. It really just means that constables need to be a little more careful when looking for those adding an editor category. In reality, no-one should be adding themselves as an editor to a subgroup unless they have an editor tag already so it's just a matter of us looking a little closer. That is, of course, if we are not talking about "specialist" editors having ONLY subworkgroup powers and approval rights. If specialists are still going to be editors in the parent workgroup, it shouldn't be hard to monitor. D. Matt Innis 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed somewhere, and i think that the consensus was that even specialist editors should be with the workgroups. Subgroups become too complicated with editorial rights outside of workgroups. However, I could see that happening in the future. Chris Day 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have known you had thought all of this through already. I'll look forward to your comment on the forum and go from there. D. Matt Innis 20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know I just arrived and I know nothing, and may be saying silly things, but anyway I guess having subgroup editors (at least listed as such) should work better regarding the approval of articles because they will be closer and more familiar with the subject than general editors from parent workgroup but not in the subgroup. Actually I don't know how this might work as the editors show themselves to evaluate the articles, but I'd say editors within the same subgroup would possibly be more acurate than less related ones. I think as CZ grows more and more specialization will be needed. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is just as important as any other! Make sure it is known where it counts... keep up with each of these discussions and I am sure we will end up with the best solution. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Leptotes

Hi Dalton, I was looking over my list of articles ToApprove and noticed that you had nominated the article Leptotes. Because you participated in writing the article, you need to use the 'three editor' group approval process, see here. SO if you can get two other editors to put their name on the list, then I will be able to perform the approval on the 20th. Otherwise, we'll have to wait. By the way, the editors need to be from the Biology workgroup, unless another workgroup can conceivably sign on. D. Matt Innis 02:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You're very welcome, it's nice to see such beautiful articles develop from a tryue enthusiast!Gareth Leng 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

navigation

My solution to ordering masses of catalog subsubpages would be the following type of navigation table:

Botanists	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	U	V	W	X	Y	Z
By abbreviation
By surname

---

I am still thinking this through but you can see another example at English spellings/Catalogs. To make this table I created the following two pages Template:Botanists and ‎ Botany/Catalogs/Masterlist to be used on the folowing types of pages Botany/Catalogs/Botanists by abbreviation-A‎, Botany/Catalogs/Botanists by abbreviation-B‎ etc., as well as Botany/Catalogs/Botanists by surname-A‎, and Botany/Catalogs/Botanists by surname-B‎ etc. The latter ones seems like it might be useful if you know the name of a botanist but not the official abbreviation. Let me know what you think and feel free to make further suggestions. As i say, I am still experimenting and open to other ideas. Chris Day 18:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Animalia vs. Animal

I have a question about a pair of taxonomy articles: Animal and Animalia. I think that they overlap so much, they are essentially equivalent, and just about anything that belongs in Animalia would belong equally as well in Animal. Do you think they should be merged? The possible options I see are:

• Keep Animal and Animalia separate, and let them develop redundant information. I don't think this would be good at all.
• Keep Animal and Animalia separate. Put everything having to do with animals in biology into Animalia. Make Animal a disambiguation page containing a link to Animalia.
• Merge Animal's information into Animalia, and turn Animal into a redirect to Animalia.
• Do the vice versa of the above.

This essentially boils down to the old argument: should a group's article title be its more scientific name (Animalia) or its more common name (Animal)? I think everything except the first option is fine—but I think the second choice is most robust. Regardless of what is chosen, consistency should be forced with all other similar pairs, such as Plantae vs. Plant, Eukaryota vs. Eukaryote, etc.

Joshua Choi 02:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should have thought of this: the discussion is taking place in Talk:Animalia. I should have put the message above there, but oh well. :) Joshua Choi 02:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pastels!

Yes, I will use your image. Faber-Castell, as I remember, are medium-soft, certainly harder than Prismacolor but firmer than some of the paper-wrapped ones such as Semmelier. Is that a fair description?

If I remember where I carefully put my digital macro-capable camera a few weeks ago, I may do something that shows several types, and representative ways they work on a common paper, side by side.

Do you draw with them? Any comments on pastel are welcome; I'm not sure of the best way to approach visual media articles at CZ. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

My high school had a strong fine arts program, but I did my best work with charcoal (art). Since then, for many years, I did both technical and fine art photography, and doing reasonable engineering drawings in pencil when needed, but have started art drawing again in the last few years.

I tend to mix my drawing media. For a fast sketch, I like charcoal, especially the lighter-weight vine charcoal rather than the compressed sticks. I will use graphite sticks and pencil selectively, as they have a different quality than charcoal.

Then, I'll use pastels of different sorts to establish broad areas of color, generally the harder sort, with some specific soft ones for things like the main color of a particular cat's coat. When it comes to fine detail, such as fur or the edges of muscles, I add colored pencils. Sometimes, I'll use a child's wax crayon, perhaps after I've sprayed a fixative on the pastel and charcoal, if I want a transparent effect; I will also use multiple layers of fixative and pastel for a deeper color. I've just started experimenting with adding watercolor or acrylic for particular effects -- I found I could not really get the bright whiteness of some cat fur, even on white paper, unless I used a pastel with metallic dust, or a paint.

Nothing serious here, just for pleasure; I'm nowhere near my skill level in photography, but film photography is just too expensive these days, especially as I no longer have a regular darkroom. Oh, if I could afford a whole set of digital 35mm camera backs, to say nothing of a digital back for large format, that would be another matter -- but a good digital back for a 4x5 view camera seems to start well over USD $10,000.

I like the idea of seeing if I can experiment and show the different effects of different pastel types and brands, on the same paper type, with the same pressure and stroke. Some of my art supply catalogs talk about the different characteristics of different brands, but don't have actual examples. Without question, though, there is a substantial difference among brands, and, even there, it may be difficult to show enough. Just the line is one thing, but the way one can control spreading the dust varies substantially. Controlled shading/smearing and even "negative drawing" with an eraser edge very much depends on the choice of pastel manufacturer, as well as other variables such as paper texture. Still, without endorsing brands, I'll use Prismacolor, Semmelier, and Rembrandt, even in approximately the same color, for different effects.

Interesting policy question here: how much of this sort of thing can be used without going to signed articles, etc.? Unfortunately, these are fundamentally experiential, just as in cooking. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking back over those personal experiences I wrote above, I see things that are worth capturing, just as much as your reasons for disliking pastels are worth capturing. As an aside, there are ways to learn to manage the dust, not completely, but, for example, it's often useful to put one's wrist on a small rest so one doesn't smear things unintentionally.

As far as Brazilian cooking, I think I cook a fairly decent version of feijoada, even in my present area where it's harder to get ingredients. Someday, I hope to learn to pronounce it! This is a fishing area where there is a lot of tradition European Portugese cooking, but not so much Brazilian. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

copy editing

Hi Dalton, just want to mention I'm pretty busy right now, but I do intend to help proof read your articles. I think we can get a lot of these into the approval pipeline. Also, I'd like to get the gallery format established so we can tackle some of these big species. Chris Day 03:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

I'd like to belatedly thank you for your warm welcome, Mr. Baptista. As you know from the Animalia talk, I've been working on Animal for the past few days, and if you have any suggestions, I'd love to hear them. Again, thanks! Joshua Choi 06:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Approval process for Animal

Mr. Baptista, I've finished up the draft for Animal, and I was wondering if you could read it over and see if you could initiate the approval process for it. I'm pretty proud of it, and I'd love to see it garner approved status. Joshua Choi 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Returning to Citizendium: an update on the project and how to get involved

Hello - some time ago you became part of the Citizendium project, but we haven't seen you around for a while. Perhaps you'd like to update your public biography or check on the progress of any pages you've edited so far.

Citizendium now has over 16,000 articles, with more than 150 approved by specialist Editors such as yourself, but our contributor numbers require a boost. We have an initiative called 'Eduzendium' that brings in students enrolled on university courses to write articles for credit, but we still need more Editors across the community to write, discuss and approve material. There are some developed Biology articles that could be improved and approved, and some high-priority articles that we don't have yet. You can also create new articles via this guide, and contribute to some Biology pages that have been recently edited - or to any others on Citizendium, since you're a general Author as well as a specialist Editor. You may like to contribute to discussions in the forums, and might consider running for an elected position on the Management and Editorial Councils that oversee the project.

If you have any questions, let me know via my Talk page or by leaving a message below this one. Thank you for signing up and reading this update; I hope that you will look in on our community soon. John Stephenson 13:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)