User talk:Chris Day: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Ro Thorpe
m (Text replacement - "North American Network Operators Group" to "North American Network Operators Group")
 
(547 intermediate revisions by 38 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:Chris DAY}}
{{NoResponse}}
{|align="center" style="border-top: solid 1px #AAAAAA;border-right: solid 1px #AAAAAA;border-bottom: solid 2px #666666;border-left: solid 2px #666666; background-color: lavender;"
 
|colspan="2"|
{{User:Chris_Day/talk_header}}
{{User:Chris_Day/talk_header}}
|-
{{TOC|right}}
|{{User:Chris_day/talk_toc}}
==Notes to self==
|{{User:Chris day/useful links}}
|}


==Notes to self==
{{r|European Physical Society}}
{{r|EPS}}
 
[http://www.eps.org/ The European Physical Society]
 
<nowiki>{{Quote|A|B|C|D|E}}</nowiki> gives:
{{Quote|A|B|C|D|E}}


:<nowiki>{{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}</nowiki> gives {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}
:<nowiki>{{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}</nowiki> gives {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}}
Line 14: Line 17:
:<nowiki>{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} > 3000 | large|lemma }}</nowiki> gives {{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} > 3000 | large|lemma }}
:<nowiki>{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} > 3000 | large|lemma }}</nowiki> gives {{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} > 3000 | large|lemma }}
:<nowiki>{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} < 3000 | large|lemma }}</nowiki> gives {{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} < 3000 | large|lemma }}
:<nowiki>{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} < 3000 | large|lemma }}</nowiki> gives {{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} < 3000 | large|lemma }}
See - [[/Notes to self]]
See:
:- [[/Notes to self]]
:- [[/Previous discussions]]


[{{fullurl:Special:Movepage|wpOldTitle=Test_articleA&wpReason=Testing}} movelink]
[{{fullurl:Special:Movepage|wpOldTitle=Test_articleA&wpReason=Testing}} movelink]


[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?action=edit&preload=Template%3APreload_Article&title={{urlencode:{{{1}}}}} <font color=#CA3D10>{{{1}}}</font>]
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?action=edit&preload=Template%3APreload_Article&title={{urlencode:{{{1}}}}} <font color=#CA3D10>{{{1}}}</font>]
*How should the r template deal with  links to catalogs?  Could use a separate 4th level definition but which related articles page should it link too?
*Apostrophe bug means that the tabs are not the correct color.  Fix the code to account so the if statement compares the url code.
* Manual placement of <nowiki>{{dabdef|Fossilization}}</nowiki> needs the basepagename added manually too.  If follow Noel's description will need a field in the metadata for any article that is the target of the basename redirect. No other way to figure out the basename for the {{tl|dambigbox}} template otherwise.  Alternative is do have a much more manually (for example, <nowiki>{{dambigbox|the process in [[palaeontology]]|Fossilization}}</nowiki> ) template but probably better to have it placed automatically. Drawa figure to make this more comprehensible.
* Manual placement of <nowiki>{{dabdef|Fossilization}}</nowiki> needs the basepagename added manually too.  If follow Noel's description will need a field in the metadata for any article that is the target of the basename redirect. No other way to figure out the basename for the {{tl|dambigbox}} template otherwise.  Alternative is do have a much more manually (for example, <nowiki>{{dambigbox|the process in [[palaeontology]]|Fossilization}}</nowiki> ) template but probably better to have it placed automatically. Drawa figure to make this more comprehensible.
* Need to write a summary document describing the uses of {{tl|RD}}, {{tl|R}}, {{tl|Rpl}} and {{tl|pl}}.
* Need to write a summary document describing the uses of {{tl|RD}}, {{tl|R}}, {{tl|Rpl}} and {{tl|pl}}.
Line 24: Line 31:
* Subpages template misinterprets location on the talk approval talk page (not sure I can replicate this).
* Subpages template misinterprets location on the talk approval talk page (not sure I can replicate this).
* Think over subpages format. Possibly need subpages style as third layer template with intermediary ones to define the magicword variables? Initiated this, see {{tl|Parameters1}} and  {{tl|Parameters2}} in conjunction with {{tl|Subpages test}} and  {{tl|Subpage style test}}.
* Think over subpages format. Possibly need subpages style as third layer template with intermediary ones to define the magicword variables? Initiated this, see {{tl|Parameters1}} and  {{tl|Parameters2}} in conjunction with {{tl|Subpages test}} and  {{tl|Subpage style test}}.
*Move the [[English spellings]] subpages and add the navigation masterlist to the top for testing. Do period table style navigation template.
*If no footer or header add specific category to note this fact, preferably no other categories too. See [[homeopathy/Trials]] example.
*If no footer or header add specific category to note this fact, preferably no other categories too. See [[homeopathy/Trials]] example.
*[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Air_pollution_dispersion_modeling/Catalogs/Models/Definition must think about the status of these sub and subsub defintion pages].  Note also that they exist as definition onlys rather than recognising the existance of the basepagename.
*[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Air_pollution_dispersion_modeling/Catalogs/Models/Definition must think about the status of these sub and subsub defintion pages].  Note also that they exist as definition onlys rather than recognising the existance of the basepagename.
Line 37: Line 43:
*Figure out utlity of transcluding refs with the r template redirects.
*Figure out utlity of transcluding refs with the r template redirects.
*Make error boxes more concise and smaller.
*Make error boxes more concise and smaller.
*Finish up the periodic table navigation, specifically whether element data shoul be in a switch page on on individual subpages


<nowiki>{{r|Nova (astronomy)#Supernova|Supernova}}</nowiki> gives: {{r|Nova (astronomy)#Supernova|Supernova}}
<nowiki>{{r|Nova (astronomy)#Supernova|Supernova}}</nowiki> gives: {{r|Nova (astronomy)#Supernova|Supernova}}
Line 44: Line 51:


::[[/Wanted]]
::[[/Wanted]]
Need to figure out the disconnects between the rare earths elemental classes and the template:periodic.  Did uranium, but others need fixing too. See [[Uranium/Elemental Class]]
Need to figure out the disconnects between the rare earths periodic table of elementses and the template:periodic.  Did uranium, but others need fixing too. See [[Uranium/Periodic table of elements]]


:[[:Category:False Start Move]]  
:[[:Category:False Start Move]]  
Line 50: Line 57:
:[[:Category:DeleteMove]]
:[[:Category:DeleteMove]]


*[[List of agricultural methods topics]]
== Too many pop-up  alert messages when starting a new article ==
*[[List of biology topics]]
*[[List of code generation topics]]
*[[List of compiler optimizations]]
*[[List of famous Canadians]]
*[[List of humanities journals]]
*[[List of important publications in biology]]
*[[List of inorganic compounds]]
*[[List of languages using the .NET Framework]]
*[[List of library associations]]
*[[List of medical schools]]
*[[List of music psychology topics]]
*[[List of notable evolutionary biologists]]
*[[List of notable paleoanthropologists]]
*[[List of notable primatologists]]
*[[List of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments]]
*[[List of operating systems]]
*[[List of organic compounds]]
*[[List of organic reactions]]
*[[List of scholarly journals in international relations]]
*[[List of scientific journals]]
*[[List of seminal concepts in computer science]]
*[[List of snake scales]]
*[[List of social science journals]]
*[[List of space advocacy organizations]]
*[[List of states of matter]]
*[[List of topics related to agriculture]]
*[[List of viperine species and subspecies]]
*[[List of youth orchestras in the United States]]


== Definitions of redirects ==
Chris, two things that have niggled me for quite some while:


When I previewed, all seemed to work as I intended. Clearly, they didn't for you. What were the symptoms? Was I running into some restriction on non-alphanumeric characters? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''Whenever I create a new article in my Sandbox and then use the "Start Article" link in the left-hand navigation panel:'''


:Just went to the top of the article rather than the appropriate section. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As soon as I cut and paste the article from my sandbox into the new article (including the subpages template) and save it, three or so large popup alerts are displayed on the main article page (ahead of the article text) telling me why they have appeared and alerting me to do certain things (like filling out the Metadata template). They must be overwhelmingly confusing to a new user writing his first article. The various pop-ups are separated by a heck of a lot of white space ... so that one must scroll down quite far to even see the main article text that I just cut and pasted from my sandbox.


::What do I need to do differently? I had, I thought, written <nowiki>REDIRECT [[Article title#Section heading]]</nowiki> [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Can those pop-ups be made smaller, with less excessive white space between them? Or can they be combined into one pop-up and made less wordy?


:::You are not wrong.  But you have a special character in the three most recent cases. While "#Sarnoff's Law" and "#Sarnoff.E2.80.99s_Law" are look the same when viewed in a hyperlink on the screen they do not behave the same in a redirect, at least not in my browser.  The latter redirects to the subsection, as we want, but the former stalls at the top of the article. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
*'''After I've created the Definition subpage and the Talk subpage:'''


===Nutritional medicine===
The Talk page has more pop-ups telling me to create the Related Articles, Bibliography  and External Links subpages. Again, one must scroll down to below those pop-ups before adding a post or reading any existing posts.
If you are going to redirect, why not to the more specific level of the subheading "Nutritional medical techniques"? I suppose that subhead could be renamed "nutritional medicine", although at some point, it will be a full article. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
: I just used what was already there.  i agree it should go to the more specific heading. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


== the importance of adding an asterisk ==
Once the Main Article, Metadata template and Talk page have been created, why not autiomatically create the Definition, the Related Articles, the Bibliography and the External Links pages complete with the subpages template included in each of them? Then, instead of all those pop-ups on the Talk page, all that would be required is one sentence stating that the Definition, the Related Articles, the Bibliography and External Links subpage need to be populated as soon as possible.


Thanks, Chris!  I still baffled by all this, however. And how that single asterisk turns everything right, is a pure mystery to me!  But thanks again! (Did you see my "cri de coeur" the Forum?) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the above suggestions would greatly simplify the task of starting a new article. What do you think? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


:On the wiki one line break is not seen as a line break at all.  However any type of indent will then force a line break. If you want a line break without an indent you will need to have two line breaks.  I suspect this strange arrangement is to allow code, such as </ref> to exist on its own line (for clarity) without actually causing line breaks in the text.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
: The messages (including the whitespace) for starting an article could easily be changed in [[Template:Orphan subpage]].
: Concerning the talk page messages I have already filed a wish in [[CZ:Wishlist]] "Obtrusive requests to edit subpages". Again, they could easily be made smaller without having to create them at once. (I do not think that it is useful to create empty pages.)
: However, both messages are as they are on purpose. Thus the pro-and-contra should be discussed, at least briefly.
: (I agree with you, Milton) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
:::Glad someone else said it.  I thought it was just my ignorance, you know, like it wouldn't bother people born into the Internet era.
:::Not to insult the original crafters, because we've all been working in the dark on this and I still think that clusters are a brilliant idea, we just need to tweak every once in a while.
:::While we're at it, could we PLEASE remove Albert from the metadata fill in form? I keep re-creating page [[Albert Einstein]] and getting a 'you're messing this up' error message, which confuses me no end.
:::And let's remove CanE and AusE as options in the language variants.  No one ''writes'' in Canadian English or Australian English, we might as well have Indian English or Trinidadian English.  We only need American English and British (or Commonwealth, if you'd rather) English.
:::[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


::Thanks for all your help in various places. I have printed your Forum reply and will study it; will also study your various moves on the various article pages and try to figure out what has been done and why. Eventually, if I can grasp things for myself, I'll see if maybe I can make the Related Articles instructions clearer. (I remember when I got my first MS-DOS computer in 1984 and it came with an enormous binder from Microsoft with so-called instructions in it -- I was literally reduced to tears at one point. Even a year or so later, when I had become pretty adept at using DOS, the friggin' book was *still* a mystery!) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::: I have removed "Albert Einstein" from the field in the blank template. (I hope that nobody minds.) On this occasion I found a Metadata template wrongly attributed to Einstein. (There may be more. And there are quite a lot of Metadata requiring "abc=Einstein, Albert" that will need to be fixed.) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


:::Are those to be earnest asterisks? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::In retrospect, it should have been Werner Heisenberg. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::You're just so certain of that, aren't you.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


An example of why one line break alone does not interrupt the text on a wiki:
:::::::I do not think these alerts should go completely but we could hide most of them behind ONE generic message per page saying "Hey, something is missing or wrong. For details, click [show].". An example for such hidden stuff is at [[:Category:Bot-created Related Articles subpages#Index]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 15:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


If I write:
::::::::I happen to like the alerts.  As rarely as I create and/or move pages, I don't remember the procedures and all that has to happen; and I'm not willing to go look up those procedures every time.  But having the alerts reminds me of what I need to do to get the article "off the ground."  It's a checklist, but not in a checklist format.  I was unaware of the Einstein Bug.  I don't know that I'd like the "something's missing" format either.  It smacks of "we know something you don't, he, he."  If the templating can tell me what needs to be done to get the cluster to an operating standard, then it should. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
<pre>
Organic chemicals<ref>An important reference here</ref> are the basis for life as we know it.
</pre>


or
:::::::::I think you have to place yourself in the shoes of a newbie, Russell -- all of these alerts, and *long* blank spaces down through which one has to scroll, are *baffling*.  "Hey, they asked me to create an article, I did, and NOW what?!  WTF is goin' on here?  Where's my article?!  What am I supposed to do with THIS?!"  Etc. etc.  Even to me, after starting maybe 150 articles, I find it annoying.  And THEN there's the stoopid Talk page, with the big blank space in the middle with the mysterious boxes on the right telling us to start a Related Articles page and a Bibliography, and god knows what else!  It looks terrible!  Fortunately I've found an answer to this:  I click on each one of these demands, go to the newly opened page, type in an "x", save it, and do the same for the next one.  Which at least cleans up the Talk page.  Let's ask ourselves: for *whom* are we creating these minotaurian complexes?  Howard and his Lemma articles? Heisenberg and Einstein and Schrodinger and his Kat to do Thought Experiments with? or for Billy Bob Thudpucker in Las Cruces, New Mexico, who just wants to write a brief article about the third-string banjo picker of the Rolling Stones?  And while we're asking questions, I wonder how many of the dozens of new Authors who arrive here and then *never* contribute anything have actually *started* to write something, and then got scared away by all the inscrutable baloney they're then *apparently* required to do?  So they curse, or shrug, and go away, never to return.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
<pre>
Organic chemicals<ref>An important reference here
</ref> are the basis for life as we know it.
</pre>


They will both appear like the following text in the wiki:
::::::::::I would consider pages started empty or with an "x" as their single content as close to vandalism. The blank spaces can be removed easily, and it should also be possible to place the talk page messages more effectively. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


Organic chemicals<ref>An important reference here
:::::::::::If the blank spaces and messages can be removed or made less intrusive, then why aren't they?  Who put this stuff in there in the first place? And putting an X in there isn't remotely *close* to being vandalism -- it's exactly the same thing as going into an edited page and putting in a Null so that the damn server or whatever decides to notice that a change has been made to the Metadata page, such as when we change the ABC and then it doesn't show up on the Workgroup page until the Null has been put in. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
</ref> are the basis for life as we know it.


::Hmmm...one can visit San Francisco, not Silicon Valley, and infer from some observation that silicone may be the basis for some life. Must be those silicon-oxygen bonds. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 17:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(undent)Can a variable be set in a user profile, which is then available to templates? The default might be "newbie". Russell would want a "verbose" mode. I would want to suppress the "suggestions"--in user design speak, "terse" or "expert" mode.  


:::You must be thinking of Carol Doda and the Condor Club.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
In some respects, the idea of the lemma came about as a means of entering minimum useful content without going through full cluster setup, some of which will never be relevant.


::::Two of San Francisco's greatest landmarks -- which we visited on honeymoon #2. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, separating the issue of removing spaces, there is no real reason to demand External Links or Bibliography. Many articles will never have them, so they can go to the list of optional pages such as Catalogs and Debate Guide. Related Articles as a suggestion, yes. The suggestion of having other articles link to this article is useful only to people that understand the overall structure, who then should not need the reminder.  Now, a link to a tutorial on knowledge navigation is another matter.


:::::Yeah, I visited it around '65 with my Tahitian wife. Did you see, many years later, the absolutely grotesque story of what happened one night at the club? The 350-lb manager and one of the little strippers were having fun after hours, strung out on coke, I guess, on top of the piano that mounted up to the ceiling on some sort of hoisting device. She was lying on top of him. The piano got set into motion; she was crushed to death between the ceiling and the guy. Really weird. For years I tried to cast a story around it that I could sell to EQMM or AHMM but could never find the handle.... PS in French, the club would be the Con d'Or, which has an entirely different, yet somewhat apropos, meaning. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hayford, your point is well taken about scaring away newbies. The newbie mode might even suppress anything beyond the minimum and post the article to a page for more experienced people to clean up. Remember the art historian? How much work would we have saved if she had just written the article and let us do the other pages? This is one of the reasons I hesitate to make instant Editors.


::::::The dancers were so delighted at being visited for newlyweds that they were buying ''us'' drinks. I knew enough to limit my intake, and also had the body mass to metabolize them.  Eventually, I am told, I was the only man ever invited into the ladies' room of the club, but it was a rescue mission.
Eduzendium also shows that it's rather overwhelming; Daniel's macros/templates helped a lot. If I may try an analogy, we are "cataloging". When I went to work for the Library of Congress, I was amazed to discover how much skill and knowledge is needed to create a correct catalog card. There is an enormous difference between even the scholarly ''users'' of the Library, and the professional catalogers. We are simpler at present, but does the newbie even notice the "workgroup" tab on the left? At LC, the catalogers needed to go far beyond that, but both are still controlled vocabularies. I still am confused when something is "Media" vs. "Journalism". --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
:I happen to think the templating here is exceptionally sophisticated and I appreciate that it can sculpt the CZ experience.  I agree with the above that some of the mechanics are skewed (e.g., having to create a null edit in order for the server to update its status), but the "white space" experience, I think, is not intended for you to scroll through to get to the article; it is intended for you to fix the problem that is identified.  But for people who create a lot of pages, I can see that it might be tedious to go through these hoops again and again when all you do is a null edit.  Also, I see the problem of EZ.  I take about 200 students a semester through the learning process of editing on the MediaWiki software and I can tell you that for a lot of them, even learning where to click to actually open the edit window can be a challenging undertaking.  Complicating the scene with sophisticated templating raises the intimidation (or fear factor) of the site. 
:So I see three levels of users here.
:# An author new to wikis who doesn't want to or will be overwhelmed with cluster set up.  (maybe in the article creation process the article could automatically be tagged (category) with a request to set up cluster; experienced hands could take care of the list.)
:# An experienced author who likes the process checklist to set up a cluster.
:# An experienced cluster setter-upper who knows what to do and can't be bothered with the alerts. 
:Also I see issues of what exactly is needed for a bare-bones cluster set up: Metadata, certainly; definitions? maybe.  Bibliography? probably not.  talk page? shouldn't need a null edit. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


::::::Unfortunately, the next morning, she did not take my advice that Eggs Benedict are not good things when one is hung over. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
::I [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3AMetadata_to_finish&diff=100630370&oldid=100580612 took out] some of the talk page alerts &mdash; feedback welcome. Will take a look at the page creation stuff later. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 17:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


==But I was there==
::: Since this has evolved to a discussion of the merits and dismerits:
In Cardiff last year for the Grand Sslam match against France!
::: I think that the information seen from the subpages template is enough: It shows what subpages exist. Those who know about them and are willing to work on them can easily start there -- if they do not want then they will ignore the templates as well. (I do ...: many pages do not need external links, and many will not get a bibliography, and why create either when one has no good idea what to enter? The same is true for definitions - better no definition than a bad or incorrect one.)
Ticket was a Christmas present... of course before the season had started. :-)[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
::: Moreover, CZ explicitly encourages to start articles the "easy way" (see [[CZ:Start Article]]) -- without subpages.
::: -[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


==Notes==
::::I now also hid the alert messages for missing metadata. The following pages are some of those that do not yet have the {{tl|subpages}} template, so you can use them to fiddle around with the new mechanism and to provide further feedback:
{{r|Nucleoside||:::::}}
{{r|Nucleotide||:::::}}
{{r|Lipoprotein||:::::}}
{{r|Critical pathway||:::::}}
{{r|Third molar||:::::}}
{{r|Transcendentalism||:::::}}
{{r|Hardy–Weinberg principle||:::::}}
{{r|Sleep initiation and maintenance disorders||:::::}}
{{r|Hypertensive urgency||:::::}}
{{r|Aldosterone antagonist||:::::}}
{{r|Team-based learning||:::::}}
{{r|Agile software development||:::::}}
{{r|Alpha adrenergic blocker||:::::}}
{{r|British Doctors Aspirin Trial||:::::}}
{{r|Health Professionals Follow-up Study||:::::}}
{{r|Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation||:::::}}
{{r|Autoimmune polyendocrinopathy||:::::}}
{{r|Bacteriuria||:::::}}
{{r|Janus kinase||:::::}}
{{r|Serum osmolality||:::::}}
{{r|Vena cava filter||:::::}}
{{r|Rifampin||:::::}}
{{r|Patient discharge||:::::}}
{{r|Nephrotic syndrome||:::::}}
{{r|Hyponatremia||:::::}}
{{r|American Heart Association||:::::}}
{{r|Craniocerebral trauma||:::::}}
{{r|Palpitation||:::::}}
{{r|Apolipoprotein||:::::}}


{{r|Respiratory failure||:::::}}
{{r|Antiphospholipid syndrome||:::::}}
{{r|Intravenous infusion||:::::}}
{{r|Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19||:::::}}
{{r|Chronic fatigue syndrome||:::::}}
{{r|Human Immunodeficiency Virus||:::::}}
{{r|Sick sinus syndrome||:::::}}
{{r|Microscopic polyangiitis||:::::}}
{{r|Queckenstedt's maneuver||:::::}}
{{r|Mechanical ventilator||:::::}}
{{r|Dysphagia||:::::}}
{{r|Natriuretic peptide||:::::}}
{{r|Ideal body weight||:::::}}
{{r|Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging||:::::}}
{{r|Reserpine||:::::}}
{{r|Thrombophilia||:::::}}
{{r|Spontaneous abortion||:::::}}
{{r|Protein S||:::::}}
{{r|Thrombophilia||:::::}}
{{r|Zygapophyseal joint||:::::}}
{{r|Opiate dependence||:::::}}
{{r|Vertebra||:::::}}
{{r|Tramadol||:::::}}
{{r|Pre-eclampsia||:::::}}
{{r|Urinary retention||:::::}}
{{r|Pheochromocytoma||:::::}}
{{r|Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors||:::::}}
{{r|Veterinary medicine||:::::}}
{{r|Polymyalgia rheumatica||:::::}}
{{r|Principal components analysis||:::::}}
{{r|GTP-binding protein||:::::}}
{{r|Intracranial hemorrhage||:::::}}
{{r|Adderall||:::::}}
{{r|Habitual abortion||:::::}}
{{r|Diagnostic error||:::::}}


<references/>
::::--[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 13:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel i think your solution of hiding things looks great.  Milt does this satisfy you? I admit the templates are a pain it is important to have some kind of visual reminder that there is an incompatibility between the metadata and the article.  Hopefully they are more subtle now. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


== AIS disambiguation ==
:That's great, Daniel!  Many thanks for getting rid of all of the baloney!  I just created [[John Dickson Carr]] to test your changes and everything is terrific except ONE thing: I foresee BIG problems ahead if you leave things exactly as they now are.  Once one has created the article and saved it, on top of the article one sees something like '''needs metadate''' and '''show'''.  If one clicks on the '''metadata''' link, one is directed to the page '''explaining''' metadata.  I will bet you that *some* people will try to put their metadata into the template shown on that page!  My suggestion: change the wording to '''what metadata means''' and '''go here to add metadata for this particular article'''.  Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


It seems amusing to think of androgen insensitivity and gender in the context of commercial fisheries, in which the gender of some of the catches can be a rather pliable thing. You are right, however, to disambiguate the abbreviation, regardless of how ambiguous the gender of some marine invertebrates may be. :>; [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
::Chris, I'll comment after I next create a new article ... which I hope will be a few days from now. Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


== Comments about the sub-workgroup proposal in your [[User talk:Chris Day/sandbox1]] ==
:::Ad Hayford, I changed the phrasing to avoid that kind of confusion.


Chris, I just want to let you know that I have posted comments in your [[User talk:Chris Day/sandbox1]]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Ad Milt, proper functioning of the templates can also be validated by putting the subpages template on any of the articles in the long list I prepared above.


== Re: your note on my talk page ==
:::--[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


::::Thanks, Daniel, that's a lot better!  Now one last thing.  When you click on the '''show''' button and are taken to the next page, you are shown some info at the top of the page BUT there is then a LARGE blank space beneath that info, so that unless you KNOW that you should scroll down to the bottom of the page, you won't know that you SHOULD scroll down in order to click on the "fill out the metadata" link etc.  I'm sure that many people would go to this page, simply look at the top of it, wonder what the hell they were doing there, and then leave, *without* filling out any of the metadata.  Can't you get rid of this useless blank space? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


>Sekhar, Just to note that the approval process is not exactly transparent. It would be great if you >have any ideas on how to make it more user friendly. Your NMR article looks great. Chris Day 16:21, >17 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Done. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
: Well, I could have just ASKED someone. But I am reticent by nature and I tried to find the procedure for nomination in the 'dive in' instructions. 
The procedure seems fine (now that I know what to do).  It may be helpful to others if you could add the following to the end of the 'article mechanics' section in 'dive in'
"....leave a message on those editors' talk pages and invite them to take a look and see if they might be ready to approve the article. You can also use the mailing lists to see if you can get others to take a look. When you all agree, then use the metadata template! ....D. Matt Innis 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC) "
Thanks for the encouragement and help.


[[User:Sekhar Talluri|Sekhar Talluri]] 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Great!  I'll have to create another new article (sigh) to check things out one last time.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


==Darwin's Health==
:::::::Daniel and Chris: I just created a new article, [[Crude oil desalter]], and I must agree that the changes made in all those pop-up alerts is a great improvement over what they were before I started this discussion. Thanks to all. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems odd to describe the health of a dead person, pretty much a one line article (lol).
Have you considered retitling of this article?  Darwin's mystery illness? What killed Darwin? or something like that? [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


:I don't think the title is final. It was a title that Larry made as a stop gap to stop the topic dominating the main article. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That seems just about perfect, Daniel, at least given all the previous template stuff that you have to work with.  I just created [[Philip Atlee]] and have a one *minor* suggestion. When the main article has been created, we now have a header in black that says something like "The metadata is missing; if you feeling like doing it, please create it; details" then there's a blue link that says SHOW. I suggest that you rewrite the longer stuff to say something like, "The metadata is missing; if you feel up to creating it, please click on the SHOW link to the right" and REMOVE the word "details" -- it's *slightly* confusing.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


::On the bright side, one can safely say that it will be never necessary to deliver bad news about declining health to a corpse. True story -- we had a very good surgical pathologist at Georgetown, who, knowing a patient was scheduled for a biopsy, would sometimes visit with the intent of getting insight from history and physical. Some patients didn't know what pathologists did, so didn't mind. Others really understood and liked the idea.
::::::::: Good suggestion. I made the change. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


::We had a couple, however, leap out of bed and run down the hall screaming ''I don't want an autopsy!''  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Peter, that's perfect!  Kudos to you and Daniel.  I really think that there is now going to be a '''lot''' less confusion! In fact, I'll drink to that! (Goes off to make a Scotch and soda....) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


== Moving ==


::except for the untimely dealth of the patient, the procedure went extremely well.  
Hi Chris. From what I can tell, you've been trying to clean up a few articles and put pages in their proper places recently. I noticed that this has resulted in a [[Loyalists (United Kingdom)/Bibliography|bibliography]] and [[Loyalists (United Kingdom)/External Links|external links]] page attached to an article about a different subject.
[[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


==Seen this?==
As I'm merely a lowly 'author', I don't think I am allowed to move pages. I thought about cutting and pasting, but then I thought it might be better if the pages were moved properly.. so I thought I'd drop you a wee note.
*[http://mag.digitalpc.co.uk/fvx/lancet/darwinsgifts/ Darwin's Gift] electronic flip-book of essays written for ''The Lancet'' :-) [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


== Hayford Peirce internet link ==
The article the subpages belong to is, I believe, [[United Empire Loyalists]].


Hi Chris, I just discovered a few days ago that the link no longer worked; evidently it was at some sort of AOL storage and, being AOL, they suddenly just folded up that particular shop with no warning to anyone.  I've emailed the guy who created the original site asking if he has founded a new one, but have had no reply. :(  [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Cheers (and sorry for adding to your workload!). --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


== Template ==
: I moved the two files. By the way: There are no "lowly" authors. You could have made the move yourself. (You are only asked to be carful, of course.) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


Chris, in [[Rubidium]] I see °C in the wrong font. It is hidden in a template so I cannot change it.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 16:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
== Chris, or someone else who knows what s/he's doing... ==


:It should be a regular-sized  roman capital, now it is too small. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 17:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
...could I prevail upon you to do the archiving thing with the [[CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon|January Write-a-Thon]] and leave me a blank page for February?  Thanks! [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
::It is OK now, thanks. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


== Never before having thought of warfarin as a source of improv comedy ==
== More on metadata ==


I was persuaded otherwise when you managed to connect it to the Great Depression, and wait, with bated breath, to see if you also connect serotonin agonists to the Great Depression.
I'm sorry to throw the proverbial spanner, boys, but this didn't occur to me before.


Nevertheless, the trend continues with your last tweak; not many people can do a bibliographically correct link to Link. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I have only just created a new article since the (excellent, I may add) changes to the setup.


== 1. P-KR3 ==
Could I just ask, if it's possible, for the 'create a metadata page if you feel up to it' notice box thingy to appear *after* a body has 'saved' the new article, not before?  At present it appears if you "preview". Now, if you click through to metadata creation on a "preview" page, you have to remember to '''go back and 'save' the original, ''or all your hard work is lost!''


I noticed that one of your links in the "Chess Strategy/Related Articles" list was "Opening (chess)".  There already exists a page at "[[Chess opening]]".  What's your pleasure -- should the article be renamed and moved, or should the link in "Related Articles" be changed to point to the existing article? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't (yet) tried it the other way, so I don't know what appears if you ignore the 'create metadata' bit and just click 'save' first.


OK, thanks. (It's not my naming convention, by the way -- "Chess opening" was already there, and I think it was originally titled by Jonathan Bashears.) [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 01:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


== [[Ideal gas law]] approval just finished by Matt ==
:You write: "Could I just ask, if it's possible, for the 'create a metadata page if you feel up to it' notice box thingy to appear *after* a body has 'saved' the new article, not before?". I'm not sure I understand this exactly. How do you normally start a new article? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
::This problem/request was not related to the "Who's on First?" metadata problem, right? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Chris, I note that:
:::Chris, I think I recognize Aleta's concern. Once the subpages template goes into a new article, "preview article" brings up the metadata prompts. From bitter experience, if I write a new article of any appreciable length, I make sure to save before inserting the template. It's not hard to get lost in the prompts, decide not to fill them in, but neglect to save and thus lose the work. --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


* You had to jog the protected version of the article to get it to display in the workgroups (which you also had to do recently on another approved) article. Does that mean that, from now on, you will have to jog protected versions of approved articles? Is there not some way that Matt can do that when he protects the approved article so that it all gets done at one time?  
::::Now I understand, I never use preview so I have not been down that route. All I can suggest is bold letters saying '''first save your work'''. Would that be sufficient? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 05:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


* The protected version lists the workgroup and subgroup categories at the bottom of the main article page. However, the bottom of the main page of the draft article does not show the categories. Instead it displays "Contents" and "Tags" and most of them are red ... the only blue ones ar "All content" and "Chemical Engineering tag". Why is that?
::::: I just added a warning message to save. Hope it helps. However, one will never be able to prevent all mistakes. If there are too much warnings they will not be read anymore ... Probably one has to make one's mistakes, and learn from them. <br> Preview can be usefull. I sometimes use preview, and sometimes not. Sometimes I wished I would have used it instead of showing my stupidity in the history ;-) --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


Confused as to why the workgroup and subgroup categories don't also show at bottom of the draft main article page ??? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes, Howard got it in one.  I'm not as brave as you are, Chris, I almost always use 'preview', I look entirely too foolish otherwise.  Trust me, no one should see my 'scrap paper'! The down side, of course, is how many times I forget to actually 'save'--sigh [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::p.s. Chris, was the Who's on First metadata problem caused by my mistake in the ''status'' field? Let's face it:  I'm a genius! [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


:First, no the jogging only needs to occur if the metadata is set to approved AFTER the article is protected. We must set up a protocol for approval that has the final edits and protection being on the article page.
::::::: Just a hint: If one has forgotten to save it is often still possible to go back to that edit page using the the browser's back button. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 12:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


:Second, I striped the draft page of the categories since they served no purpose.  The approved categories replicated the draft categories. Also every article name in the category ended with "/Draft"  that is unsightly, so there is a very good reason to stick with the approved categories on the main article. Also bear in mind our readers will read the main article. Historically the old /Draft categories was actually a kludge solution to allow recent changes on the draft version to be tracked. However we now have the tags which are far more efficient and are used to track all change in any given workgroup seen by clicking on "recent changes" in the workgroup (or subgroup) page  header. If you would like the categories visible it will be possible to have them at the top of each draft page.  That might even be preferable?
::::::::Er...yes, but when I say 'forgotten', I really mean it.  Like, I've shut down the computer, turned off the generator, taken the dogs for a walk, had my hair done (okay, that's a lie), made dinner...and then I come back next day wondering where that incredibly excellent 240 page cluster that I started is! [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


::Of course, I am only one user, but I do think making the categories visible somewhere on the Draft main article page is desirable. When I click on one of the "Tags" (e.g., Engineering tag), I am presented with a verrrry, verrrry long list of articles including all the cluster subpages ... when all I want is a list of the article main pages like I am presented with when I click on a category (e.g., Engineering Workgroup). I repeat that is my single opinion. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
== The "Fair Use" upload summary ==


:Lastly, the tag categories are still red links (and the content ones) because we have not systematically populated those pages. Hold off on that since I need to tweak the workgroup template so that the appropriate text appears at the top of each page.  The ones that have been done, notably the [[:Category:Biology tag]], have been set up manually, rather than automatically. I'll fix this soon. i am still trying to figure out how the tag categories can be 'hidden' since they are only meant to be utilized by the workgroup "recent changes" option, not by users for browsing. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Chris: In the last few days, I uploaded two logos by claiming Fair Use. They were the logos for [[ASTM International]] (ASTM) and for [[International Organization for Standardization]] (ISO). When I went to ''CZ:UPLOAD / I am not the copyright holder / This use of the work is Fair Use'', I arrived at the upload file form to be filled out. It has a '''one-line window''' in which to write the rationale for claiming Fair Use (i.e., the window labeled "Notes").


== two baffling items that I'm trying to REMOVE the delete status from.... ==
Here is what I wrote as my rationale: "<font color=purple>The logo image is used to identify the International Organization for Standards. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary.</font>"


Hi Chris,
It was very difficult to write all of that into a one-line window and to check it for spelling, grammar and omissions. Is there any way to revise that upload file form so that the "Notes" window is at least 6-8 lines wide?


I just cleaned up the entire Articles to Delete page -- all the articles except one or two had had Requests for Deletion from various Editors in the relevant Workgroups. A couple of them I reclassified, I think, and are still in existence.
By the way, most of my above rationale was borrowed from WP ... because I could find no similar rationale help in CZ. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


Two of them, however, baffle me.  Larry wondered about deleting them a long time ago but they look relevant to me and have been worked on.  What I WANT to do is to simply remove any Delete Request notice. But I can't find a request *anywhere* -- I have looked over and over everywhere.  And I inserted a null, saved. Removed it, resaved it, and that didn't change anything.  
:I made a reply ing the forum.  But in case you missed that.  For me, I use the upload primarily as a decision tree to get the correct templates. I often make changes and additions to them after the upload is complete.  In this case that might be the best way to go.  


On the http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Articles_for_deletion page, those two items *still* show up! It's driving me crazy!
:As to the technical suggestion of adding a larger edit window.  I would, if I could, but I'm not sure where to make such changes. Or what to change. Possibly Peter might have a better idea? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) test


Help!
== Thanks for getting the water freezing point straightened out (if it just stays that way). ==


Hayford
Thanks, Chris. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 06:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


== Thank you for the sandbox information! ==
==New template==
Hi, Chris. Thanks for your offer of further help (not that I can find it...)


[[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 00:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you make the '''unknown letter''' at [[Template:Common misspellings prolog]] show itself, please?


== About the Talk Page Etiquette ==
Ta! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


The MediaWiki source code Matt and you wrote is protected so we peons can't make any changes ... not that I am complaining, because I think you did a superlative job.
: Where are you not seeing it?  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
::I think I understand your point now. It will not show on the template itself. But look at the page where the template is used and you will see the correct letter there. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
That's what I thought I was doing - but anyway, it all seems to be fine now - thanks. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


I would only suggest that the third column (titled '''Replies should be indented:''') might be better if it read: Indent beneath the comment you are replying to by using colons :, ::, ::: and so forth as more replies are added.
== Pedia tricks ==


My suggestion adds 5 words but it avoids inferring that replies go beneath all of the other comments. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 10:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on it! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


::And it doesn't really change the appearance, either, since the second instruction, about using the "+ tab" already takes up more vertical space. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
== Categories, bots and templates ==


:::I'm always open to input. :)  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Categories can be removed fairly easily by a bot. Let me know if that would be worth it (haven't found the page you use to track these). Also, could you please take a look at {{tl|Basic elemental def}}, perhaps in conjunction with [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Elements]]? I am thinking of prepopulating the empty pages via preload templates, but would appreciate some more input. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


== Templates, particularly infoboxes ==
:If the bot can do that, great, although It might be tricky to program since it might not be able to predict every type of category or combination to remove? I just made an addition to your template.  Check it out on an element page and see what you think. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chris,
::The bot can in principle be given a list of applicable categories, or wildcards could be used in defining their names. No need to program for combinations &mdash; it will simply edit the same page again when working on the next category.
I am writing to you because you deleted [[Template:Template doc]] which I was about to use via [[optic tectum]]. I am considering to move over several articles on brain parts and species from WP. Some of the templates used in there appear to be helpful to me but I did not find guidelines on the principles used here to distinguish between templates that are desirable and those that are not. Please take a look at optic tectum (and [[xenopus laevis]] which I have stopped working on for the same template-related reasons). Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks &mdash; the addition is valuable, but the current setting (not mine, by the way) is not compatible with {{tl|r}}:
{{r|Neptunium||:::}}
::--[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


:I forget why i deleted it. I think it was because the structure in WP was a mess.  There was a lot of history with adhoc changes, many redirects for example. It seemed better for us to start from scratch. Let me look at the details again and I'/ll try to build what you need. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Now I understand.  i thought you wanted to populate the element article pages but you're actually after a template to add the definition. I'll modify it as best i can, will probably have to have the definition pages <nowiki>{{BASEPAGENAME}}</nowiki> added as a parameter, ''i.e.'' <nowiki>{{Basic elemental def|Parameter}}</nowiki>, since it will not transclude properly otherwise. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


== Help!!! At a loss about moving ==
::::I tweaked it enough now that i think it will work with the r template and also with a [[Ruthenium|lemma article]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Daniel, are you trying to modify the template so it will work for the "Hydrogen (element)" format?  I noticed that you had all those links on your page too. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I want to move the [[Piping]] cluster to [[Piping (engineering)]] and I am at a loss because:
: Daniel and Chris, I hope you do not mind, but I wonder if it would not be better -- and require the same (or even less) effort -- to create the definitions with a bot (using the same logic as in the template)? Or even manually copy the definitions from Daniel's page to the definitions? --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


*The Move Cluster link that used to be on Talk pages (I think) is no longer to be found
::I don't know for sure but I was thinking that Daniel might be planning to use a substitute script along those lines? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Clicking on the Move tab at top of the article main page bring up the move page with radio buttons which now include an option for moving the Talk page and all the subpages along with the main page. But the move instructions have always said move all the subpages '''and''' the Metadata page '''before''' moving the main page and the talk page.


So I am confused. When do I move the Metadata page? Before or after I use those radio buttons that will move the main page plus the Talk page plus all the subpages??? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
:::I am not too eager on using a bot for just those 100 elemental definitions (too time-consuming, relatively speaking, to get it approved), so I thought I would create those pages by means of preload templates, similar to the [[CZ:Eduzendium]] course setup wizard. Ideally, there would be no piping (e.g. by integrating {{tl|Basic elemental def}} with {{tl|r}}.
:::I do plan, however, to set up a bot that creates lemma articles in place of empty pages for which a definition already exists.
:::On a related note, I am inclined to think that <nowiki>{{r|foo}}</nowiki> should also display [[Foobar/Definition]] if [[Foo]] redirects to [[Foobar]] and [[Foo/Definition]] does not exist. No idea how to make the template recognize a redirect page, though. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


:Good question. I have not figured out the best way given we can now move all the subpages and talk pages at once with the article.  I suspect the best choice is to move the template first along with changing the pagename field in the template. Then move the original article (make sure you choose move associated talk page '''and''' move all associated subpages). I need to rewrite that move template as it is obsolete since the mediawiki was upgraded (the reason for the absence of the move clister link at the talk page). [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
::::As for [[Hydrogen]] vs. [[Hydrogen (element)]], I would prefer the latter to be applied throughout, but think that would be up to the chemists to decide. My idea was just to prepare the templates such that a coherent system can be easily achieved. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


::Chris, the system would not accept moving the Metadata template first. It kept telling me there was no such page as [[Piping (engineering)]] even though I had revised the template to have the renamed title and abc.  
I think using (element) is not a bad idea, but I'm not a chemist.  


::So I went ahead and clicked on the Move tab at page top, and used the radio buttons option (that displayed on the Move page) to move the Main page and all of the subpages ... which the system did perfectly including the definition.
As for <nowiki>{{r|foo}}</nowiki> using foobar definition if there is a redirect from foo->foobar, I agree that might be good but I'm not sure if it is possible to read the target if the redirect? You do know you can pipelink with the {{tl|R}} template?
With regard to populating the pages.  If you want to use all the subpages with the properties for each element they will have to be moved to the new name, ''i.e.'' [[Boron/Atomic number]] to [[Boron (element)/Atomic number]] if you do not want to have a parameter in the template. This could be done easily by moving every element along with all its subpages. I'll modify the {{tl|Basic elemental def}} template so it does not need a piped parameter. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


::I then tried to re-edit the old Metadata template, but the system still would not accept that. So then, I just created a new Metadata template with the re-named article title. All is now well. In summary, I had to first move the main page and all the subpages. Then I had to create a new Metadata template.
: May I remind you that using single properties subpages is a disputed matter? --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


::I note that all of the old subpages still exist and are re-directed to the new subpages. I think that those old subpages should be deleted, don't you? Now that we have a disambiguation page, [[Piping (disambiguation)]], which is why the rename/move had to be made, those old subpages are going to be confusing since they appear in the pop-up menu when someone searches for [[Piping]] using the search box in the left-hand navigation section. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
::I'm aware of that.  So far, I am just asking questions of Daniel and tinkering with the template since I'm not 100% sure of what he is proposing. One thing I do think is important is to have a basic page for each element. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


== Mea culpa, mea culpa, and mea hypocaffeinosis ==
:::I am aware of that too, and it actually inspired me to have another look at the matter, thus prompting my tinkering with these templates. The point here, however, is to have a consistent format, which can be achieved by means of a template transclude predefined content onto the definition page, and it can easily be adapted to either the current system with multiple properties subpages or the discussed alternative with one centralized metadata-like page. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Apropos the deletion in EAS -- I fumblefingered and tried to explain in another note.  Very insomniac night, and now I am caffeine deprived. If you can make sense of the logs and not lose the detailed information I ''did'' put in on more questionable allegations by a study author, feel free.  
::::On pipelinking, I am well aware of that too, but many non-bot starts of Related Articles pages are made by simply dumping in a list of related topics, formatted using {{tl|r}}, without much regard for which articles actually exist. So we often have the case described above that <nowiki>{{r|foo}}</nowiki> does not bring about a definition, even though one exists at <nowiki>[[foobar/Definition]]</nowiki>, when [[Foo]] is a redirect to [[Foobar]]. I am wondering whether this is the way it should be. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


What happened is that I was doing a lengthy entry, didn't save, checked the watchlist, saw your comment, answered it, then went back, saw the other edit window, without engaging brain, saved. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Not related to the chemistry stuff but well within the scope of this section: Can you please take another look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ABot-created_related_article_subpage&diff=100643820&oldid=100616784 Template:Bot-created related article subpage], which I attempted to modify such that it accommodates Lemma articles? Example to play around with: [[Biomedical engineering]]. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:Daniel, looks good to me. What is your rationale that these need to be distinguished?  So we can fortify our navigation network with lemma related articles pages? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


== Environmental Engineering subgroup ==
::Does not look good to me &mdash; [[:Category:Lemma Bot-created Related Articles subpages]] is full of articles which do have metadata. I suspect there is a problem with a wrongly placed pipe in the template or with the way I check for the presence of the Metadata page, but I couldn't figure out the details.
::The rationale for this distinction is that if there is no metadata, then the names of the categories at the page will be broken, since they are by default composed from the metadata. And yes, extension of the related articles grid is the purpose of the bot, which can be configured to work with lemmas too. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


Chris, while we are waiting for the subgroup proposal in the new proposal queue, do you think we could go ahead and create an Environmental Engineering subgroup? I could populate it immediately with at least 6-7 articles including 1 approved article. What do you think? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
:::Strange. I'll double check. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:At worst we have to undo it. I'd say go ahead, lets' be optimistic here. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
::::[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ABot-created_related_article_subpage&diff=100643918&oldid=100643820 That] was it. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::Great! Now, how do we do it? If you will set up the subgroup banner and whatever else is needed code-wise, I will immediately get those 6-7 articles into it by making the needed changes in their Metadata pages. We already have an [[Environmental engineering]] article that is needed as the main article. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


== Need your magic touch ==
== Automated handling of content - doubts ==


Chris, I have added the Environmental Engineering subgroup to the Metadata templates of these five approved articles: [[Accidental release source terms]], [[Air pollution dispersion modeling]], [[Air pollution dispersion terminology]], [[Air pollutant concentrations]] and [[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]]. All of them now list the the Environmental Engineering subgroup  among the categories at the bottom of the protected Main Article as they should. But:
Sorry that I am negative. But I have serious reservations against any automatic handling of content.
Providing a standardized definition for the elements is rather easy
(and in principle I like thinking of the logic behind such programs)
but I don't think that they are really useful.
Giving the atomic number in the definiton is trivial, but not very informative.
Some element specific information (about its importance, or some peculiar property, etc.) is much better.
Now, of course, the generated definition can alway be replaced.
-- but it is much more likely that a non-existing definition is provided
than that an existing one (correct though simplistic) is rewritten.


*Neither of the five protected approved articles or their draft articles are listed in the Environmental Engineering subgroup ... not in the Articles section nor in the Approved section. They need your magic touch (since I can't add a null space into the protected aricle).
Concerning the idea to automatically convert all definitions without main page to lemma articles:
I think there is a legitimate use for lemma articles (ask Howard), for definitions to redirects,
but also for definitions without a page (only intended to be used in Related Articles).
The difference is that -- if the page does exist -- a link to that page will look correct
though it may be better to link to another page. This decision cannot be made by a bot.
(For the same reason I think that one also should be careful with redirects and only use them for "correct" titles.
but not to lead from incorrect titles to a correct one.)


*None of the five approved articles list the Chemical Engineering subgroup or the Environmental Engineering subgroup list as a category in small font at the top of the Main Article page of the draft article.
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


*In fact, none of the 18 approved articles in the Chemical Engineering subgroup list the Chemical Engineering subgroup as a category in small font at the top of the Main Article page of the draft article.
:I think I disagree with the first paragraph, while I am not sure I understand the second. But once we have a coherent template system, I wanted to bring the matter to the forums anyway. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


Can you apply your magic touch to the above listed 5 Environmental Engineering subgroup articles and to the 18 Chemical Engineering subgroup articles?
::The purpose of lemma articles is discussed in [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3065.0.html this dedicated thread] at the Forums. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


I know that you have notified Matt that he needs to revise his approval protocol but that doesn't help with the existing approved articles unless someone goes back to apply their magic touch to all of them. Perhaps what is needed is a robot to do that?? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
== About [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] and metadata templates without provisions for subgroups ==


:I just added 5 more articles to the Environmental Engineering subgroup. They are articles not yet approved, so there were no problems with them. I just used that workaround of a adding a null space to get all of them to display in the Environmental Engineering subgroup after I edited the 5 Metadata templates. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Chris, the [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] was written before there were any subgroups and the Metadata template specified only the Physics and the Chemistry workgroups. I added the Engineering workgroup.


::Yes these are problems for the subgroup concept. On this scale it is little trouble but in the future when we have more approved article we need a way to address this. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The was no place to add a subgroup, so I added sub1, sub2 and sub3 to the template. Then I specified Chemical Engineering as sub1.


:::You are definitely a genius!! Everything seems to be working correctly now. I checked about 7 of the articles and they were all okay. Also, all of the draft and all of the non-draft articles are now showing correctly as they should in the Environmental Engineering subgroup. Now, I think I will try to draw a logo for the Environmental Engineering subgroup banner as I did for the Chemical Engineering subgroup. Thanks mucho again, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 03:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The bottom of the Main Article then listed the categories as Physics, Chemistry, Engineering and Chemical Engineering as it should. The [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] shows up in the Physics and Chemistry <s>and Engineering</s> workgroups as it should do ... but I cannot get it to show up in the Engineering and Chemical Engineering subgroups despite twice making a null edit to the article's Talk page. Can you please get it to show up in the Engineering workgroup and the Chemical Engineering subgroup?


== Some clean-up-the-workgroup questions ==
There are a good many of the older articles that have metadata templates which don't have sub1, sub2 and sub3 in them ... so perhaps they should be added somehow. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:Milt the null edit needs to be made to the article.  i just did that and it is now listed as you'd expect. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chris,
:As to the sub1-3 field holders, yes they were a fairly recent addition so many metadata pages will not have them. Possibly Daniel could add them with a bot? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Trying to do some work on my poor neglected subpage and I've run into some snags. Well, maybe they're not snags at all, just things I don't understand.
== That's one false move for man ... ==


#At the bottom of the main article, there are Categories; I notice some red links: hobbies Content | Hobbies tag | Dogs tag | Dogs content. What are these and why are the red, i.e. should I be placing something there?  I assume they are generated by Metadata?  Why?
Chris, I think I understand that a page is placed in [[:Category:False Start Move]] when the metadata template is not completed, but can you explain how [[United States War Department]] shows up in that category when that page is only a redirect?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:This is normally because it was in the false move category and then the metadata gets cleaned up, thus it is out of the category. Now the flaw in our system (auto placement of categories), the article is listed in the categories that exist when it was last edited. It should be removed from the category after a minor edit to the article. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


#I figured out why Dog Editors was red even though I added myself to it.  But, the category Dogs approved at the subgroup page is red, even though it has content (so I put a sentence in it.  Delete that if it's wrong).  Also a couple of approved dog articles do not show up in Dogs Approved.
:I just looked into this a little more closely and it is actually due to it being on the talk page (See [[Talk:United_States_War_Department]]). Citizendium differs from other wiki's in that a talk page will show up on a category without the name space being listed.  BUT, sometimes you can distinguish this since it will be listed in the category under T. The reason we do this is that many of the housekeeping categories are placed on the talk page, so such categories do not have every entry starting with "Talk:". [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
#What is the title 'All Articles' for?
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 01:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, one mystery solved. All articles was a bold title rather than a link because I was here ([[:Category:Dogs Subgroup]]) not here ([[CZ:Dogs Subgroup]]).  I think this CZ:Dogs Subgroup is home, but I don't exactly know what the other one is. I mean, that's where I was when I edited the editors category, and it worked.  I gather I should really be editing from CZ:Dogs Subgroup [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 01:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, CZ:Dogs Subgroup is home (equivalent to [[CZ:Hobbies Workgroup]]). The other one, ([[:Category:Dogs Subgroup]]), is the category where all the articles in the subgroup are listed (equivalent to [[:Category:Hobbies Workgroup]]). Does this make sense? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


== Approval of [[Evidence-based medicine]] ==
::Ah-ha, I've got it.  Thanks for the clarification.  Any reason why I can't do a clean-up?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


Okay, I changed the metadata first, then the article pages.  Did that work better?  I'm still not clear what was not showing up correctly? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:::No reason, that is what you should do.  The subpages template should be removed from that page as it does not work on talk pages of redirects. The talk page could be speedydeleted if it is empty too. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


:Yes, what you just did worked fine. The problem before was that the approved category was getting added to the article after it was locked since the change in the metadata was toward the end of the process. Then, as no one could edit the locked article, the categories would not be updated (jogged, re-registered, whatever the technical term is?). I've been thinking about this issue and it's becoming a real problem. 
::::I've discovered that some Lemma articles are showing on this list. Any advice there?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:Another potential solution, other than the script method [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:D._Matt_Innis&diff=prev&oldid=100440171 I mentioned before], is to have ALL categories on the metadata page and have links to categories at the top of article pages, similar to what we currently have on the draft pages. That would require a category on the metadata template page to show up in a category with the articles name 'only' rather than "Template:Article name/Metadata". I suspect this is possible as categories on our talk pages only show up with the article name. I'll need to do some research.
:The advantage of such a system is that edits to the metadata template designed to change the clusters categories would always become current since the categories are all registered by an edit to the metadata template. I'm not sure I'm being very coherent here. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


::Holy smokes, Chris, you must get headaches! I'm glad you can keep it all straight. I hope you know you can't die.. without cloning yourself :-[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::I just jogged [[Evolution of language]] and it got removed from the category.  I'm not sure why it was in there, looking at the history there is no clear reason. All I can imagine is that Daniel added the subpages template to start the lemma article before the he created the definition page. In that order there would be a false start category that would disappear with the creation of the definition subpage.  In such instances the article will always need to be jogged with a null edit or it will remain in the false start category, even though the category no longer appears on the page. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


:::I'll have to check into Roslin, [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2517.msg19386.html#msg19386 along with Gareth]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
::::::Correct guess on [[Evolution of language]], Chris. I did that on purpose to test how the {{tl|subpages}} machinery would react to this unusual order of page creation, and think we should somehow include this scenario into the phrasing of the warning messages, depending on whether a definition already exists or not. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


::::Hehe.
Here's another quirk of the functionality: If a user creates a page all in one edit with a subpages template, the page will get categorized as "False Start Move" but it will not show up on [[:Category:False Start Move]].  It requires '''''two''''' edits to the article page before it will show on the category page.  See [[Declaration of the United Nations]].  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


::::Concerning your problem with the cats and considering the robotics of the approval process. Would it be easier to create a bot that does my part and your part so you don't have to change the categories to the metadata template? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 15:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
:So presumably an edit only uses categories that are already on the page. I wonder if that is the case with manually added categories? By the way, these are general issues with the wiki software. I think you'll find they exist on your in-house wiki, as well as wikipedia.  Obviously this is less of a problem when there are a lot of edits.  One of the advantages of having a ton of vandalism?? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:::::That's the other option along with jogging every subpage after any change to the metadata.  However, this is not very elegant and creates more background work for the servers. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


== Myron C. Lake article ==
:I just tried creating a page and adding the category manually.  In that case the edit does register correctly. So it is the auto-generated categories, only, that need the double kick. What a pain. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
:if I'm going to be subject to changes like that, i.e., tearing out a whole section, then I'm outta here.  I had that sh*t at Wikipedia, and I won't have it here.  The gallery was one thing, but the entire appendix is unacceptable. lemme know, cause i will not finish the article if i have to put up with this again.   [[User:S. W. Kolterman|S. W. Kolterman]] 06:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


::S.W. Kolterman, please believe me when I say that Chris is really one of the most helpful and gracious people we have in Citizendium. I guess he assumed you understood the subpage system that is used here. It is one of the differences between us and WP. For example:
==Wow==
Noticing changes that you and Howard made to the "Criticism of US foreign policy" article -- excellent idea to make military spending as a % of GDP; you guys are pros. Impressed.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 01:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


::*We have no "See also" section. Instead, we have a "Related Articles" subpage.
==Error correction/s==
::*We have no "External links" section. Instead, we have an "External links" subpage.
There needs to be a better way of handling external complaints than going public with the emails on the Talk page. My suggestion is to leave the 'complaint' on the appropriate workgroup forum or forward the post to the appropriate mailing list. The workgroup mailing lists and workgroup forums are currently under-utilised. 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::*We have no "Bibliography section". Instead, we have a "Bibliography" subpage.
:Sounds like a good idea. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::There are no errors in the article btw. Listen is a totally different group/line-up to Obs-Tweedle. Noddy Holder as 'roadie' is referenced. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Having no access to the images I can't comment further, however since my information was gleaned off Bill Bonham who played in the band Obs-Tweedle, I'm fairly confident his information is correct. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
::::Chris, I just spoke again to Bill Bonham who confirms the article I wrote as being correct. Bill Bonham knows Noddy Holder very well. You can visit Bill Bonham's MySpace site at http://www.myspace.com/quiffo . [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


::There also many other subpages, like "Tutorial", "Video", "Catalogs", etc. Chris simply moved your Appendix material into an "Addendum" subpage.
For what it's worth I uploaded the pictures [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3072.msg27620.html#msg27620 on the messageboard]. For the record I don't doubt your sources. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Thanks Chris. Some of those newspaper clippings appear to have been taken from scans on the LedZeppelin.com forum thread called 'HOBBSTWEEDLE' (yes I know, an incorrect name by another poster) originally scanned by a guy in Birmingham called Chris. I was a part of that thread discussion on Obs-Tweedle. I might reuse some of those clippings for the Listen article, rather than the Obs-Tweedle article since they are two different bands. While it may have been possible Noddy Holder was roadie for Listen, my insertion of Robert Plant's quote was based on Plant's recollections which are referenced from ''Q'' magazine and repeated in subsequent newspapers, and from what I could gather from my interview with Bill Bonham in 2009, before I composed the article. On the quote about Bill Bonham playing keyboards with Hari Kari while Robert Plant was singing for Obs-Tweedle, here is an email response I received from Bill this morning: 'Yes I was in Hari Kari but when I was in Hari Kari was way after Terry Reid and Led Zep came out with there first album..  Obs-Tweedle split when I joined Terry Reid or some time after I left' He is clear he didn't join Hari Kari until after Obs-Tweedle folded. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


::So please, shake hands with Chris ... and please stay here. It is all just a simple misunderstanding. I read your article and enjoyed it very much. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(Unindent) I don't know anything about the pros and cons of the info in this article or of the worth of the newspaper clippings -- I merely brought them to your attention.  But please review the CZ guidelines on what Wikipedia loves to kick around as Original Research.  Our own strictures are less rigid, but they *do* exist. Larry, for instance, made it clear, when I first joined, that the fact that [[Robert A. Heinlein]] told me that one book or another was his best book could NOT be incorporated within the Heinlein article. He encouraged me to write a Topic Informant article, however, ([[TI:Hayford Peirce/Heinlein]],) with this information in it, and a link to that article now appears at the top of the Heinlein Talk page ([[Talk:Robert A. Heinlein]]). It may be that some of the information in this article should be handled in the same manner.[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
:This is not original research. The quote, which seems to have sparked that email, is referenced from a reliable published source (according to WP standards). External references are used throughout the article. There are no errors in the article. This appears to be a case of someone who confused Listen with Obs-Tweedle and/or dislikes the fact that Robert Plant referred to their idol Noddy Holder as a roadie. Nothing is 'made up' or unverifiable for this article. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


== Look at my sandbox for small image that could be used for the Environmental Engineering subgroup banner ==
:: I do not see any reason to exclude "personal communications" (they are used in scientific literature, too). Why should a personal communication to an author be excluded (if labelled as such) when a source that cites a personal communication would be accepted? --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


Chris, could the image on my sandbox be used in the banner for the Environmental Engineering subgroup page banner? It is meant to represent clean air, clean water and clean land. You can view it at [[User:Milton Beychok/Sandbox]]. If you don't like it, it won't hurt my feelings.
::: Because the source citing it is deemed to have checked and certified it. ''Authors'' on CZ have no recognized authority to do that. I don't know whether ''editors'' do. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of it? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


:Hi, Chris: Not having heard from you, do I take it that you don't want to use that image in the Environmenral Engineering subgroup banner? As I said before, I won't mind your not falling in love with the image ... but I would like to know, one way or the other. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
== Talk:Quintile ==


:Milt, I love the image, very stylish, just no time to get your banner done just yet. :) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Chris, this is a minor issue, but it could lead to establishing some general policy.
::I decided to place a copy of image here (so I could free up my sandbox) for you to use or not use as you see fit. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 06:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC) [[Image:EnvEng.png|center|100px]]
By accident, I noticed that you deleted [[Talk:Quintile]] (after copying part of it to [[Talk:Percentile]]).
I left it with the redirect because it is part of the history of this page, and it does not hurt if it remains there.
(My tendency is to preserve as much history as possible, e.g., by blanking rather than deleting.)
--[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


==Core List==
==Thank you!==
I guess I just edit first think later. I changed that list for a simple reason really - the worry about what someone looking in would think about our priorities. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 20:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


:I have no problem with the changes. Just musing as to what we actually want to do with such lists.  I guess i have not thought about it for a while and your edits jogged my memory of the issues i was wrestling with at the time i contributed to it. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for helping me to edit that list.
[[User:Nick Bagnall|Nick Bagnall]] 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


:: - that's the way to think :-) what's the purpose? Advertise our best and inspire by example must be a part of it. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
== Copyedit to protected page ==


:::Gareth, I couldn't agree more. There are many ways to be exemplary. They include coverage of subjects that simply aren't well covered elsewhere, of potentially substantial interest, and perhaps can make good use of our flexibility of original presentation rather than original research. If the topic is more specialized, good writing, cross-linking, and references can set an example, and one never knows where research will lead: I recently discovered that if one young man had taken one choice offered to him, he who was to become known as [[Ho Chi Minh]] might have been political revolution's loss and culinary arts' gain. As soon as I finish with one reference I must get back to the library, I'll probably allow Ho to lead me into some material on [[Auguste Escoffier]].
Hi Chris,  


:::Great effort in wonkology, however, can reflect on priorities, as well as what might be seen as political correctness. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
in {{tl|Community}}, can you please change the "Main Page" in
<pre>
|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|<small>[[Main Page]]</small>
</pre>
to "Welcome Page"?
Thanks!
--[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


== Like you have nothing else to do.... ==
:Daniel, that was a cascading protect from kim's talk page.  I edited her page and it seems to have removed the protection on that template. I'll change it though too. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Chris, when you have a mo, can you take a gander at [[Heterosis]] and make sure I haven't written anything embarrassing?  (Or another biologist can as well). [[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
== CZ:Request Approved Article Copyedit ==


== need help with a non-existent (but existent) speedy delete ==
Chris, with Matt being AWOL for the past 10 days or so, the list of approved articles needing copy edits is growing. I have about 10 approved articles listed there myself. Can you fix those?


Hi Chris, I need help with this (I'm copying a message that Bruce just left on my Talk page):
If you need a volunteer to do some of that work, either temporarily or permanently, I am available ... but I will need some tutoring on how to do it. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
*Mysterious speedydelete on JFK/Related Articles


No, I didn't put a speedydelete on JFK/Related, but here's what probably happened. I noticed that the former "List of US Presidents" had been moved into the Catalogs subpage of the President article; but the Definition subpage of "List..." still existed. Since it had no "main article" to belong to, I thought it should be speedydeleted, so I put the template on the Definition subpage. But then, when editing "JFK/Related," I noticed that that page links to "List of US Presidents" (which is now a redirect to "Pres./Catalog", and uses the {r} template, so it tries to display the defintion -- which, now, included a speedydelete template (which showed up in the middle of JFK/Related). This isn't very pretty, so I removed the template from "List/Definition". But apparently the fact that the "speedydelete" showed up briefly on "JFK/Related" somehow got it listed on the speedydelete list.
:Thanks very much for your prompt response. There is still [[Chemical engineering]] where Meg Ireland corrected spelling of succesfully to successfully. Could you do that one as well? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
::I think that was specific to the draft as it is not in the main article. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


Whew. Got all that? [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 20:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
== [[Intron]] ==


Thanks, Chris -- this is *way* over my head! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi I found some new info about [[Intron]] but I wasn't sure if you wanted to include it in the article; currently it's in the sandbox [[User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox7]] plus some pictures and diagrams. Feel free to include it; I'm not a scientist, and I found that while I couldn't make much sense of the technical articles, when reporters explained it, I could grasp the basics.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


== Question about subpages  ==
:Looks good Thomas. Feel free to paste it into the article. I can work on it there. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Chris, I started [[Hermite polynomial]]s and prepared a table of these functions. For the being I put them in [[Hermite polynomial/Catalogs]], but I wonder if that's the right subpage?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
::OK, thanks Chris, like I'm not a scientist and so it's cool that you can catch glitches which reporters make.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:Good question, another possible one is Addendum. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 13:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


::I moved the table to Addendum, now Catalogs is redundant. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 13:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
== The [[:Image:Gasoline Fuel.jpg]] ==


== Archive box formatting ==
Chris, I don't know how you did it, but your merge of the two photos is very much better than my original one. Thanks very much. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Yes, that would be preferable! I didn't know that it existed, I just copied what I found in an earlier Archive. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
:When I cut out the gas pump I made sure the selection tool cut all the white out. I merged the two images using the anti-alias option so the edges of the pump did not look too sharp. Third, I brightened up the pump to make it a little more striking. Glad you like the changes. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


== Can you please fix the mess I made? ==
== Intersection of cat adoption and tall tale? ==


I was trying to move [[Department of Commerce]] to [[U.S. Department of Commerce]] and made a complete mess of it after I mis-spelled the new name. I see that you fixed the move for me. But now I cannot access the Metadata page to see if reflects the move ... I keep getting a blank page instead of the Metadata template. Please Help. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Tall tail?


:Chris, I really want to learn how to move a cluster to a new name. Now that we no longer have the cluster link on the Talk pages, exactly what is the order in which to make a move? Or is there some CZ page that has been updated to spell it out correctly? Please spell it out so that a simpleton like me can follow it without messing up again. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(I am not making this up: Mr. Clark rejected tuna, wet disgusting cat food, and his expensive hypoallergenic dry cat food. He insisted on going upstairs into the general cat area, and into the bin of regular dry cat food -- in which he then went to sleep.) [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


::This is near the top of my to do list. Let me practice and see what works best. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
== [[2012]] ==
I'm kind of looking for a green light before working on "2012" -- not that I'm that interested in it, but wondering what the policy is and whether others here will support it. It's a hot article on WP even though it's kind of a stupid subject (futurism stuff) as well as a movie. Wondering if there's some kind of "approvals in advance" place to get permission for dubious articles.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 17:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


== blahblahblah licenses ==
:I really don't know much about it.  But it would be no worse than an article about [[UFO]]'s or [[astrology]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


Someone is going to have to figure out the copyright issues associated with the topics that Stephen left undone.  I'm willing to put some time into it but don't know if I can finish it. In any case, the first step is to point the upload text somewhere other than blahblahblah.  Could you make the adjustments?  Just point them to an appropriate sounding location and we'll figure it out from there. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 22:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::OK, thanks, so you're saying if I write it, that you don't think I'll have problems with it. Thanx, Chris.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


:Oh, thank goodness, Joe, I have been worried about those, too.  Thanks.  If you need me for something, let me know.  I'm sorry I can't help much with copyrights, but hopefully you can fill that niche! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I can't think of a reason why there would be a problem. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


== Subpages and uncategorized articles ==
== Asking for your comments ==


I've been inching my way through uncategorized articles, putting in subpages. Should I be using a different page for problem articles?  
Chris, would you look at the "Nitrogen cycle" section of the [[Air]] article ... and make any revisions you think are needed? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


There are a huge number of uncategorized subpages for elements, which clearly belong to chemistry.  I'm not sure how the subpages should look. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 23:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
== Can you improve [[:Image:Venturi Tube.png]] ? ==


== A question ==
Chris, the only drawing program I have is Microsoft's Paint program that is included with Windows XP. As you can see in [[:Image:Venturi Tube.png]], the lines that are not horizontal or vertical (that is, the angled lines) are quite "jagged". Does your program create angled lines that are not jagged? If so, could you replace the jagged lines in [[:Image:Venturi Tube.png]] with lines that are not jagged? It would greatly improve that image. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


Chris, I want to write an article about "concentration" which will explain the various methods of expressing concentrations, such as: percentage by weight, percentage by volume, ppm by weight, ppm by volume, molarity, molality, mole fraction, mass per volume ( e.g., mg of particulates per cubic metre of air,  or grams of salt per litre of water), etc., etc.
:Milt, there are multiple free graphics packages out there that far exceed the capabilities of MS Pain(t) &mdash; to the point of being hypercomplex. Two that probably merit a look for diagrams like these are [http://www.openoffice.org/product/draw.html Open Office Draw] and [http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ Gimp]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 08:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


It will not be <nowiki>[[Concentration (chemistry]] or [[Concentration (physics)]]</nowiki> or any of the many other non-science usages of the word such as "intense mental focus", "the spatial property of being crowded (e.g., compactness, denseness)", "convergence", etc.
::Thanks, Daniel. One of these days I will take the time to download one of those and learn how to use it. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


I know it will require a disambiguation page. Now about my question: I would like to name the  article just plain <nowiki>[[Concentration]]</nowiki> and have a pointer at the top that says "For other meanings, see <nowiki>[[Concentration (disambiguation]]" which would list [[Concentration (chemistry)]], [[Concentration (physics)]], Concentration as in intense mental focus, Concentration as in the spatial property of being crowded, etc. Is that okay in CZ? If so, how do I create that [[Concentration (disambiguation page]]?</nowiki> [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Chris, thanks for fixing the Venturi image for me. It looks much better now. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


== AN- > Related Articles > Masterlist ==
== Your talk at the New Communication Channels for Biology Workshop 2008 ==


Noted; I can live with that as long as I remember it is there. The problem, for which there is no instant solution, is that certain articles (subpages?) have a substantial role as what I'll call "indexing nodes" rather than free-standing articles. [[AN-]] is a little different in that it also has content about the designation system; I don't know if some of the dog list "headers" also have content. There is an awkward terminology nuance in computer science that describes the idea: a '''tree''' only has content at its terminal leaves, while a '''trie''' (alas, pronounced "tree") can have content at nonterminal nodes.
Hi Chris,
can you send me your slides from [http://ccbw.calit2.net/video.html that workshop], or put them online? They may be useful for drafting the [[User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Open Knowledge Conference 2010/|OKCon 2010 paper]]. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


At least for this particular subpage, an ideal, obviously related to programming, is to have an automatic mechanism that creates an r-template entry every time a new "links to AN-" article is created. Of course, this has to be manual for now. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
:Wow, i'd forgotten about that.  <s>I'll root them out.</s> Just looked on this computer and no sign, it must still be on my semi-dead (screen is broken) lap top. I'll boot it up tomorrow and see if i can find anthing on its hard drive. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


:You don't need to remember were it lives as when you click on the edit option in the related articles page it takes you to the masterlist. This is true for any cluster where it might live. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks! I put the slides up [http://docs.google.com/present/embed?id=ddwhqd6k_296csrfjmvg here] for everyone to work on. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 09:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


== lemme concentrate on this for a moment or so ==
== CC vs. PD ==


Hi Chris, Shouldn't [[Concentration]] be deleted and only a disambig page exist?  This is very confusing.  Or are you in the process of straightening this out? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
How, for Pete's sake (as some would say), can I upload (and correctly credit) an image directly [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Fractal-Trace-Gimp-Panton-Principles-Settings.png/credit&curid=100151124&diff=100652678&oldid=100652669 as PD]? The only option I saw to do so always leads to it being labeled as CC0-1.0, and at least in this set of three images (which shall serve to illustrate the [[Panton Principles]]), I do not want to have any name attached to it, because that is the message of these Principles. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


:Every time I see it, I think "whack-a-mole" while the mole is munching on Avogadros. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:I just looked at the upload file link and it seems to be click on the "I am not the copyright holder" tab.  Then select the "in the public domain" option.  Then for the license select "creator has released into the public domain". Are you not seeing those options when you do the upload? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


:Milt has an article he will move to concentration. I was testing it since i noticed the R template was not working correctly. When i modified the R template I was anticipating that an article would not exist if there was a disambiguation page. However, this policy got changed to 'if there is a really common usage it should live at the article name AND have a disambiguation page for the other terms'. i need to reprogram the R template to be able to "See" that scenario.  
::I do, though this time I went there via "I am the copyright holder" and "Release into the Public Domain", which gave the CC0 attribution. I think the problem with the upload wizard is that Caesar left when he was mostly but not entirely done with it. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


:In short, we do not really have a standard for disambiguation, I'll try and write a short description of how I interpret our 'standard' and see if this works for everyone else. I think this could be one of those issues where there are two philosophical camps, so we probably need to move carefully. As to [[Concentration]], I'll deleted those test pages. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::[EC] OK, I just followed the "I am the copyright holder fork" and now I see how you got to "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal License". I guess that is equivalent to public domain? But this is beyond my ken. If Caesar was not done with it, possibly the PD license option should be at that point too? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


::Are you trying to tell me disambiguation has to be disambiguated? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
:::The two are practically equivalent in the US but CC0 is more universal, since most jurisdictions do not have PD, but all have [[copyright law]]. Anyway, CC0 means that also no BY is needed. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


:::Disambiguation is definitely ambiguous but given time we should have an unambiguous disambiguation procedure. Unless we find examples of disambiguation that do not fit into a one size fits all process.  In that case we could have a disambiguation page to help us understand the ambiguities of disambiguation. But I'm pretty sure we can have a very unambiguous disambiguation process if people are willing to compromise. Or maybe not.  Maybe we should start warming up the disambiguation page for disambiguation? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I've just spent 10 frustrating minutes at [[:Image:Drink to Yesterday.jpg]] trying to '''"Upload a new version of this file"'''.  Can't be done.  All you can do is '''start all over again''' and upload another file under another name AND fill out all the @#$%^&* information that you had to do with the first one! And unless you're maybe a combination of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, you can't '''"Edit this file using an exterior application"''' either.  Geez! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


::::Redirect disambiguation to [[Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle]].
:::::That doesn't sound right.  Are you using the link titled "'''Upload a new version of this file'''"  just above the [[:Image:Drink_to_Yesterday.jpg#filelinks|Links]] section title. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:::::Alternatively, redirect disambiguation to disambiguation (disambiguation) and redirect disambiguation (disambiguation) to disambiguation. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


::::::You guys are kidding, right?  Right?  RIGHT?! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


:::::::You think this is a laughing matter? ;) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::PS -- I use Chrome as my browser.  Could that be affecting things in some mysterious way? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


== Speedy Deletion Request page changes ==
::::::::If you choose the new file to upload and then save, leave everything else blank, then it will be fine.  You'll see. It will ask you if you want to ignore all warnings.  Select yes and then you're done. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Chris, could you take a look at the http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests page to see if the editing, changes, and additions I put in are correct -- I wanted to make this as '''clear''' as possible for the next poor victim who stumbles across it.... Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::It keeps telling me that I need License info, and the license info isn't what I want.  And it won't work unless I choose a license. No way. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


:Yes, I think that's a distinct improvement!  Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I just tried it, and it works fine with jpg, but when I use .png, I get "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again." --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 01:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


== Subgroup proposal ==
:::::::::::It still doesn't work.  I have, on my computer, a *smaller* version of the present image.  It has the same name and is a .jpg.  A few minutes ago I had a slightly different name on it, but it was the same .jpg file. It doesn't matter *what* it's called.  No matter *what* I do, I am told that I MUST choose a license.  If I don't choose a license, it will NOT upload the file. Period. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Chris: I note that the subgroup proposal is now listed as a New proposal at [[:CZ:Proposals/New]]. I also note that[[:CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council]] lists Active proposals before the Editorial Council (many of which have been sitting there over six months).
::::::::::::I just tried and it worked fine. All I did was choose the new file on my desktop.  Then save. Then chose ignore all warnings.  That's it.  All the files data and licenses are intact. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


How does a New proposal get to be an Active proposal? Also, why are those Active proposals still sitting there without the Editorial Council being notified to vote on them? Who is responsible for moving Active proposals to a vote?
:::::::::::::A box doesn't pop up and tell you that you have to choose a license? Do you have a Papal dispensation, or what? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


I'm not complaining ... I'm just trying to understand how the proposal system works and you are my fount of all knowledge. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 08:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::No, I've never seen that and I've updated images at CZ quite a few times. [[User:Chris Day|Chris
Day]] 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


:Not in this area, I try and stay away from governance issues.  Now I'll have to dip my toe in the water. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 08:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Off to bed, but tomorrow I'll do a screen capture of the box I get and I'll email it to you. Don't know what else to do. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 04:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


::I asked these same questions on Larry Sangers' Talk page. In one of his responses, he explains how you move your New subgroup proposal to the Active proposal list. I suggest that you read what he said at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Larry_Sanger#Trying_to_understand here]. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
== Space Invaders ==


::When it has been moved to Active status and then needs a Sponsor, just let me know. I'll sponsor it in the blink of an eye. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought I'd got the hang of new pages but apparently not. I've seen the changes you made and will follow the example when making futher pages. --[[User:Chris Key|Chris Key]] 00:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


:::I'm comfortable defending what we currently have. Having just glanced through the rules I now see i could have sponsored this myself, or am responsible for finding a proposer.  i think it's better to have an separate sponsor and driver so thanks for volunteering as sponsor.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
== Lemma formatting ==


::::I might add that I am more than willing to be named as a co-driver or a sponsor or both if it will help to move the proposal along. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of displaying the definition above the instructions in lemma articles? I just [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Lemma&curid=100091956&diff=100653055&oldid=100649850 did the switch] (also [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Def_only&curid=100147979&diff=100653048&oldid=100648088 this one]). --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
:Somehow, the definition pages do not display properly now, and I guess {{tl|subpages}} would have to be remodeled to accomodate the change I made. Do you think that's worth it? --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
::I reverted both changes and moved the testing to the test wiki: [http://test.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Lemma&curid=100091956&diff=100642057&oldid=100640610 Lemma], [http://test.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Def_only&curid=100147979&diff=100642056&oldid=100641506 Def only]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 01:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
:::Could not pinpoint exactly what the problem was, so I went back to normal for the time being. On a related note, what do you think of merging {{tl|Def only}} and {{tl|Lemma}}? --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


:::::Me, too.  I'll help put it into form.  But for right now, I'm working on Noel's disambiguation proposal [[User:Russell D. Jones/Resolutions Sandbox | here]] and [[User:Russell D. Jones/Resolutions Sandbox 2| here]].  Chris, could you take a look at it and give me your advice?  I was thinking that we'd keep Noel as at least honorary sponsor.  I'd be willing to co-sponsor.  Would you co-sponsor, too? [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I would not be against that.  I'll have a look and see how it can be streamlined, or do you already have a plan? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


===Almost===
:::::I do, but can't put it in words easily (other than moving the conditionals from {{tl|Def only}} to {{tl|Lemma}}). Will thus give it a go on the test wiki, and let you know how things go. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 07:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think we are almost done.  We just need the to resolve whether affiliation occurs before/after Main Article approval. OR we can send it as is and let the ed council debate it. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:Do you want to send it?  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


==Refs==
::::::I merged them and added some categories, which makes {{tl|Def only}}, [[:Category:Definition Only]] and [[:Category:Related Articles Only]] redundant. Please check and adapt as you see fit. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
<references/>


== Move ==
Things work fine on the test wiki, but the display problem that started this thread
interfered when I did bring the changes over to the live wiki (where  {{tl|subpages}}
has not been updated yet.
So please transfer [http://test.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Subpages&curid=100021004&diff=100642170&oldid=100642169 this edit]
to {{tl|subpages}}
(possibly with [http://test.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Subpages&curid=100021004&diff=100642171&oldid=100642170 this typo correction])
and then [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Def_only&curid=100147979&diff=100664676&oldid=100664645 revert this edit].
Test clusters:
[[Special:PrefixIndex/Glia/|Glia]], [[Special:PrefixIndex/Open_Knowledge_Foundation/|Open Knowledge Foundation]].
Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 12:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:Daniel, i made the change but is the definition page the way you intended? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
::Fixed and streamlined. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
:::Nice work Daniel, that's a big improvement. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the explanation. I realised that was what you were doing - I had thought the box was already ticked but clearly not. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 19:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
== The section on "Nitrogen cycle" in the [[Air]] article ==


== I can't believe I forgot ==
Chris, about two weeks ago I asked you to look at the section on "Nitrogen cycle" in the [[Air]] article and revise it in any way you felt was needed. I know you've been busy, but I would still appreciate your review as a biology editor of that that section. Thanks in advance. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


Shucks, sorry about NMR!!!  Old habits die hard! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:Hi Milton I looked at the [[Nitrogen cycle]] article and proposed a revamping here in a sandbox: [[User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox2]] I expanded it but I'm not a scientist or technically-minded like you or Chris so I'm deferring to your judgment. I'm finding my paint program doesn't work well, so I hand-drew a diagram, but still am unhappy with it. I'm wondering if there's a good paint program that is simple, powerful, works with Ubuntu Linux so I can do better quality stuff here.--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 02:25, 27 March 201UTC)
:No problem, i didn't even think to mention it. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


== Unfortunate metaphor? ==
::Thomas, my request of Chris was simply to take a look at the small section of the [[Air]] article that briefly describes the nitrogen cycle ... briefly on purpose.


How can you speak of making genetic engineering "live"? I might go with ''in vitro'' and ''in vivo''. For dead genetic engineering, I think you have to get trained in Haiti. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 05:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::What you have written in your sandbox2 is a an expansion of the stub article on the [[Nitrogen cycle]] ... which I very much agree needs to be expanded, but which is out of my field of expertise. So I don't believe that I am really qualified to comment on your expansion of that stub article. I would suggest that, in addition to Chris Day who is a biology editor, you contact [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony Sebastian]] who is also a Biology editor and quite active. I would also point out that a very good drawing of the cycle is available in Wikimedia Commons [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nitrogen_Cycle.png] where it is designated as being in the public domain. Other good drawings can probably be found with a bit of Googling. Regards, 03:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
:With respect to the article, it is barely live. But I'm working on bring on-line these externals. As for creating life, you need to read Science more.  i think they are close to the first synthetic organism.  With a goal to producing the minimal autonomous cell, ''i.e.'' the smallest set of genes required for successful replication. I'm sure there are all sorts of ethical issues that will blow up in their face but live, in this case, might be appropriate.
:How about the deep south? I heard [[New Orleans]] had [[voodoo]]? Although, if that were the case, why didn't they use their powers to divert [[Katrina]]. Hmmm... on the other hand, may be they created her?  But that would debunk the truth, the [[CIA]] were seeding [[hurricane]]s with [[IR]] rays in the [[Gulf of Mexico]] to increase their [[energy]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 05:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


::Yeah...New Orleans has much better food. Go there. Apropos of CIA, did you see that I put up the start of [[thought reform]]?
:::Does Anthony Sebastian have the "Nitrogen cycle" article on his watchlist? If so he'll see a note I placed there. I did this article first so that I would be in a position to help you with the "Nitrogen cycle" section of the "Air" article. But I'm not an expert by any stretch either. Good idea to get the picture on Wikimedia Commons -- my drawing didn't come out as well as I had hoped, but I still have ''illusions'' of being an excellent CZ sketch artist!--[[User:Thomas Wright Sulcer|Thomas Wright Sulcer]] 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


::Hah! You biological types think you have? What are the ethics of turning off a self-aware computer?
== False start move ==


::Biological trivia question that you might, possibly, be able to answer. As I remember, it was the Asilomar conference that established what are today's Biological Safety Level standards. My nagging recollection is that they established six hazard levels, 5 and 6 being too dangerous to attempt. Again from nagging memory, P6 was introducing the encoding for Type A ''Cl. botulinum'' exotoxin into normal enteric ''E. coli''. If so, what was an example of P5? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 06:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chris,
I think [[:Category:False Start Move]] is overpopulated, and at least partly with what should rather be in [[:Category:Lemma Article]], e.g. pages like [[Citizen science/External Links]]. As far as I can tell, the culprit is the if nesting in {{tl|Subpages}}, so I can't fix it. Please check. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
:Daniel, is this still a problem? There did not seem that many there or is that because you have processed them?  From what i could see they were mostly left over subpages or lemma like pages without a definition. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


:::Actually, I think you might be thinking of the governments implementation [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Asilomar_Conference&diff=100447744&oldid=100432771 of the recommendations] that came from the conference. See the hyperlink to ref that I just added to our [[Asilomar Conference]] stub.[[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 06:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::I think I see what you mean, now that i have looked more closely at the example of [[Citizen science/External Links]]. At present the only lemma subpages supported are /Related Articles and /Definition. Are you suggesting that we should allow /External Links and /Bibliographies too? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


::::Much closer. This has the four categories, although not the "Pn" nomenclature I remember. There is, however, "These include the cloning of recombinant
:::Yes, and Video. In principle, I would like to have all subpages enabled for Lemmas. This allows to collect materials in the right place even though the article has not been written yet. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
DNAs derived from highly pathogenic organisms
(i.e., Class III, IV, and V etiologic agents as classified by the
United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare),
DNA containing toxin genes, and large scale experiments
(more than 10 liters of culture) using recombinant DNAs that
are able to make products potentially harmful to man,
animals, or plants."  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


:I read that section but it did not seem to match with what you remembered. i suspect your memory is correct but it has been through so many revisions that the specific examples got cut and replaced with more general classes. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 06:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
::::I'll look at the coding and see if it is an easy fix or not. If so I'll do it as soon as possible. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


::Again from vague recollection, Michael Crichton may have picked up on P6 when he came up with the ''Andromeda Strain'' premise that certain containment had to have a nuclear self-destruct. (rolls eyes) before the formal BSL series were established, I worked for a company bought by Electronucleonics, which had a multiple-negative-pressure containment for oncogenes. We did the virology information systems. When the lab opened, it was a big show -- no organisms in it. Unfortunately, the telephone lines hadn't been connected, so I had to patch my demo into the one working pay phone -- and then get through two airlocks (the negative pressure system ''was'' running) to log in before the call disconnected. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 06:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::If you would unlock it over on the test wiki, I could join the coding. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


==The==
::::::I have [http://test.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Subpages&curid=100021004&diff=100642130&oldid=100642129 changed] and tested it on the test wiki. Please transfer it here. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
My copy (OUP) is "The Origin of Species"; the original title was "On The etc". My instinct is that "The Origin if Species" is defensible as the commonly known book title. I had a similar moment thinking about "[[The Design of Experiments]]", felt that including the The marks it as an article about the book not the topic. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


== Note ==
:::::::Thanks! My edit also contained a typo correction. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


Yes, Chris, just Dalton. I'll set my preferences and signatures straight away. So far I am surveying the pages to get familiar with Citizendium. I hope in a couple of days I'll be able to start contributing in a more active way. Thanks for the warm welcome. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 18:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
== Nomenclature for botany articles ==
:Lol, I had seen it already. Naming conventions have been a pretty hot subject on Wiki. Yes, I'll post some thoughts there later. Actually this was my first concearn as picking a name is the first step when writing an article thus I wanted to know if there was any convention already in use before anything else. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 19:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
::Chris, I have started this [[Leptotes]] article, based upon [http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Dalton_Holland_Baptista/Esbo%C3%A7o3 this article], that is halfway done on pt-wiki which I decided would be a good start to finish writing here as it will never really be finished there and, so far, just lays on my user subpage as a sketch. So I do have a question concearning keeping hidden sections of the text while I translate it. Is it possible? <nowiki><!-- --></nowiki> don't seem to work here. Well, I still need to upload the English spell checker of Firefox too, but I am ready to any comment you may think is useful. Thanks, [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 21:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure where you tried it but it is definitely possible to comment out using the <nowiki><!-- text here not seen --></nowiki> format. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::It's good to see your adjustments on the article, although it is just a sketch. Yet I'm sure it will need plenty of English language fixing when it's done, I haven't even checked it so far. Thanks [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


== Navigation, etc ==
Plant hormone or plant hormones or plant growth hormones?


Wow Chris, this will help a lot. It is very good to have a handy example to start with. A lot of work you put on that. Well, I'll study the possibilities and think what's the best we can have. The taxobox itself is a sort of second navigation box, so it will also help with higher taxa. When I started on WP I did things one way but soon found another easier one to navigate. My later articles on WP used to have a [http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predefini%C3%A7%C3%A3o:Coelogyne navbox box] at the end with the species (and sections if there was any) list. See one example expanding the genus Coelogyne tag at the end of [http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelogyne thia article]. On the other hand, something that is very useful and I got frequent and great feedback, was the possibility of browsing the species not through only their names but they by their thumbnais. This is good because the primary visitors to this kind of article look for identification of a plant before they want to know more about it. Sure they want more info but at first they want to know what it is. I maintain another website I am not updating anymore which can be browsed by photos ([http://www.orchidstudium.com/Estrangeiras/Coelogyne.shtml see]). I'll make a couple of different articles to get used to the system here to see how it works before having any suggestions.
*Auxin or auxins?
*Cytokinin or cytokinins?  The animal article is [[cytokines]].
* Gibberellin or giberellins?


Now, regarding the taxobox itself. Sure it is inspired on WP. As is was already there when I came I never really thought of it but maybe we can make some adjustments and have our own improved system. I haven't thought much about this as it was impractical changing WP. I just ask myseld if we do really need to have the whole classification of every species, from the root, creating sometimes very long taxoboxes, of if it is better split them at familia level, so familias will have cassification up to the root and species, only familia, subfamilies, tribes, genera, sections, etc. In some Pleurothallidinae and Oncidiinae species, there will be up to 15 ranks to display and they will be repeated thousands anf thousands of times. Well, just thinking.
*Tissue culture
**Plant tissue culture


Is there any taxonomist group working on CZ? I see the Biology group but that is too wide to discuss these detais and most of the people probably won't care about them.
I'm beginning to think I need to become your student... --[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


Well, my last thoughts are about naming conventions. I have placed a lot of thinking about this on WP and have researched many diferent languages discussions. I suppose spliting discussion in two groups, fauna and flora, will make it easier to get to a consensus. This happens because fauna has a sort of better established common name convention. Flora has none. Regarding flora, French, Spanish and Italian WP are doing all articles named after scientific name. English WP has been doing so during the last 3 years. I am firmly convinced scientific names are much better. Reasons are several, but I'll mention the main ones:  
::I've been his student for years...[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 03:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
*For uniformity and organization of all articles creating a standartization that soon any user can get used too.
*Because users who want to learn about a given species will like to know their scientific name.
*Because scy names always have good primary sources of info and types.
*Scy names have do not vary anywhere in the world and foreigners always will look for these names rather than common ones (We must remember English is the world language now and people from all nations will use CZ, these are not likely to know most of English common names.)
*Because, if anytime CZ becomes multilanguage, all articles in every language will have the same names.
*Because many plants do not have common names and many have several, and because many common names refer to several unrelated plants.
*Because most of the times there is no good reference for common plants names.
*Because comprehensive good books use less and less common names today to name their chaptere and none of my taxonomist friends anywhere ever mention them, they do not even know most of them.
*Because we do have the redirects (we are not print on paper, where this cannot happen) and desambig pages that clearify confusions can be separated from articles making then cleaner and straighter.
*(and, particularly on orchids, they are not used almost anywhere but on WP, because of the rules and votings of people who do not know anything about them but want the common names to be used.)


Well, I just arrived so have to learn how things are settled and working before saying much. Back to work now! Thanks a lot for all your support. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 16:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
== Checklist22 ==


:A quick response, our related articles subpage is pretty much equivalent to your use of the navbox. Our taxobox has been tweeked a little compared to WP ([[User:Kim_van_der_Linde|Kim]] did it) mainly to try and simplify a bit. With subages we have options not available to wikipedia to display much of the ancillary data e.g. the gallery tab and subpage. With regard to names, you're preaching to the choir here, although i am in the minority.  We did not really resolve the problem, see [[CZ talk:Biology Workgroup]] for a bit of the discussion. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chris, please comment on [http://reid.citizendium.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47#c25 this], either there or here. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


::Hi Chris, I haven't done much today besides reading, during the last three hours, all the naming debates I could find. It's sort of sad that addopting scy names for all species articles isn't an unanimity here. When I first read about CZ I was pretty sure that other possibilities wouldn't even be thought about, scy names are the only reasonable way to go! claims that people would not find their way to the articles are not reasonable. I do not know almost any scy names of animals and probably would be the one looking for [[parrot]] before getting to the species I want to know about, so what is the problem? internet users know how to find they way. Oh, well... as the discussion has been dropped for a while I suppose the choir will raise volume when more taxonomists get involved with the project. I'm afraid I'll have problems finding a good common English name for my orchid articles as they are hardly (if) ever mentioned on the hundreds of books I have (all in English). Only Withner uses common names, some that he created himself, as he wanted to have common names on his book. I have no idea where En-WP people look for to come up with all those odd names to orchids. For sure no one uses common names for any orchids in Brazil, orchids are not garden plants and the ones who collect or like them do not use common names at all (maybe with some exceptions in the US?). I am thinking of naming all orchid articles by scy names and if any of them need to be changed to the common name, someone can do it later. Anyway you know well the problem so I said enough. I liked a lot the leptotes gallery you've done, I'm really excited with the possibilities. I also fear it will be a little bit odd when I start writing several orchid articles while so many more important articles are lacking but my best contribution will be on this subject. I am also thinking of setting a page, maybe on my own userpage, while botany project or whatever closer to it doesn't start, explaining the taxonomy options will be used so anyone willing to discuss it, or just writing articles, may have a guide. Well, that's it for now. cheers [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:You just want to know about the test link? That was a hyperlink to walk authors through a move cluster sequence. I did that by opular demand to try and make the process of moving a cluster more efficient and transparent.  It never really did serve the purpose as things got complicated if the article was moved before the metadata template. Since then, it got broken with a mediawiki update and i could not figure out a good work around. I had forgotten it was still available as an option. We should probably just remove and delete all the templates associated with it. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


== Category question ==
::Thanks, fixed. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Do you know if there is a way to view a list of articles that are all in the same multiple different workgroups?  I'm imagining a Venn diagram of two different categories that overlap on certain articles.  I want a list of the overlapping topics.


Subworkgroups might accomplish this once they are set up, I suppose, but I'm looking for something in the short term.  This would allow us to identify a subset of articles (like history of science) that a given editor might approve or that a given author might like to work on.  --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 18:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
==Please join with me in urging Hayford not to resign==


:Military history desperately needs this; military law very well might. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Chris, see my plea to Hayford not to resign as Constable (on his Talk page). Please join me! [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


::See my reply on Joe's talk page. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
== Listing-defined references test ==


:I had been thinking specifically of history of science because I believe Russell Potter and Richard Jensen both prepared articles that could be approved in short order by Russell Jones, who does history of science. In fact, that is how John Logie Baird made it into the list of articles currently nominated for approval.  
As of September 2009, the Cite.php extension was modified to support list-defined references. These can be implemented with the parameter to the {{tl|reflist}} template, or by using a pair of HTML tags (<code><nowiki><references></nowiki></code> and <code><nowiki></references></nowiki></code>) in place of the <code><nowiki><references/></nowiki></code> tag. These reduce clutter within articles, by putting all the citation details in the section at the end where the footnotes are displayed. As with other citation formats, these should not be added to articles that already have a stable referencing system, unless there is consensus to do so. When in doubt, use the referencing system added by the first major contributor to use a consistent style.
:Obviously, people like Dr. Jones can do all sorts of approvals, but to preempt (unfounded but probable) outsider criticism, I'd like to see as many articles as possible be approved by ''very'' qualified people.  It also helps us suggest easy starting points for new editors and authors.


:I guess I haven't thought too much about what else I would want to see. I'll give it some thought now.  A bot that can suggest commonly paired categories would be useful; do you know how to do that? --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 00:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The example below shows what list-defined references look like in the edit box:<!--i.e. construed to look similar when viewed on the saved page. If you're actually IN edit mode it'll look different with the tags such as <tt> and <nowiki> used to make the construction work-->
<blockquote style="color:#999; background:white; padding:1em; border:1px solid DarkSeaGreen;">
<tt>
The Sun is pretty big,<span style="color:black;">'''&lt;ref name=Miller2005p23/>'''</span><br />
but the Moon is not so big.<span style="color:black;">'''&lt;ref name=Brown2006/>'''</span><br />
The Sun is also quite hot.<span style="color:black;">'''&lt;ref name=Miller2005p34/>'''</span><br />
<span style="color:#666;">&#61;=Notes==</span><br />
<span style="color:black;">'''<nowiki>{{reflist|refs=</nowiki>'''<br />
'''<nowiki><ref name=Miller2005p23></nowiki>'''Miller, E: <nowiki>''The Sun''</nowiki>, page 23. Academic Press, 2005.'''<nowiki></ref></nowiki>'''<br />
'''<nowiki><ref name=Miller2005p34></nowiki>'''Miller, E: <nowiki>''The Sun''</nowiki>, page 34. Academic Press, 2005.'''<nowiki></ref></nowiki>'''<br />
'''<nowiki><ref name=Brown2006></nowiki>'''Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", <nowiki>''Scientific American''</nowiki>, 51(78):46'''<nowiki></ref></nowiki>'''<br />
'''<nowiki>}}</nowiki>'''</span>
</tt>
</blockquote>


::In the mean time, site specific Google searches work relatively well. See [http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.citizendium.org%2Fwiki+%22History+Workgroup%22+%22Chemistry+Workgroup%22&btnG=Search this search], for example. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 00:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Below is how this would look in the article, once you had previewed or saved your edited section:
<blockquote style="background:white; padding:1em; border:1px solid #999;"><!--Edit mode note: the example display code uses some raw html to avoid clashing with other/real references and notes on this page.-->
The Sun is pretty big,<sup id="nbLDR01" class="reference">[[#noteLDR01|[1]]]</sup> but the Moon is not so big.<sup id="nbLDR02" class="reference">[[#noteLDR02|[2]]]</sup> The Sun is also quite hot.<sup id="nbLDR03" class="reference">[[#noteLDR03|[3]]]</sup>
<br /><br />
<font size=3><b>Notes</b></font>
----
<ol class="references">
<li id="noteLDR01"
><b>[[#nbLDR01|^]]</b> Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 23. Academic Press, 2005.</li>
<li id="noteLDR02"
><b>[[#nbLDR02|^]]</b> Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51(78):46.</li>
<li id="noteLDR03"
><b>[[#nbLDR03|^]]</b> Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 34. Academic Press, 2005.</li>
</ol>
</blockquote>


== Stand-alone "Related Articles" ==
Defined references must be used within the body; unused references will show an error message. However, non-list-defined references (i.e. ordinary footnote references fully enclosed with <nowiki><ref> and </ref></nowiki> tags) will display as normal along with any list-defined ones.


Is it possible and permissible to create a "Related Articles" page for a topic that has no main article, no definition, no metadata, no nothin'?  For example, some months ago an author wrote a bunch of bios of NASCAR drivers, which are at present "orphaned" articles.  There is no article "NASCAR," but if it did exist, its parent topic might be "Sports" and among its children topics would be all of those bios, and then they would be reachable from a top-level article and thus no longer be orphaned. 
----


So, could one create a page called "NASCAR/Related Articles" without causing a huge mess?
The Sun is pretty big,<ref name=Miller2005p23/> but the Moon is not so big.<ref name=Brown2006/> The Sun is also quite hot.<ref name=Miller2005p34/>


(Not that I'm at all interested in NASCAR; this is just a real-life example of some orphaned articles.) Thanks. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 18:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
{{reflist test|refs=
<ref name=Miller2005p23>Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 23. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
<ref name=Miller2005p34>Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 34. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
<ref name=Brown2006>'''Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51(78):46</ref>}}


:Yes. You describe exactly one of the reasons it can be done. The parent topics, I suppose, would be Sports (Automobile racing?) and Engineering (automobiles/high-performance automobiles).
:Chris, I tried this because it is such a great improvement ... but I cannot get it to work. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


:GO to Subject/Related Articles. I'd encourage at least introductory text, above "Parent topics", explaining this is standalone and why. Of course, you can quickly add by writing a brief Definition, then opening the article page, typing the SUBPAGES template, and get the minimalist "lemma article". This can always be converted later to a full article &mdash; I know very little about car racing, but I understand the history of the NASCAR organization, as distinct from the races, is quite interesting. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
::I tried it in my WP sandbox and it works perfectly. But the identical edit box coding does not work in my CZ sandbox. Has that Cite.php extension revision been implemented for CZ? It would greatly improvement the readability of edit boxes and make editing revisions, rewrites, etc. very much easier. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I agree with you with regard to why we want this here. I'm assuming this does not work here at CZ,  I was testing it here. The text above might be confusing, it is a direct cut and paste from wikipedia. I'll ask Dan if he knows what to changes need to be made to the Cite.php exension here to make this workable.[[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


::I stand corrected; the lemma process now requires a bit more. Write NASCAR/DEfinition; open NASCAR, type in SUBPAGES, save; click on "create metadata template" and do the minimum (categories do make sense); then click Related Articles once the cluster shows up. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
== Categories for images ==


:::The "create metadata template"  link should only be used if you are intending to create a cluster.  If you just want the lemma then that link should be ignored. This is still an idea evolving so please make suggestions to improve the usability. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
What do you think of letting images inherit the categories of the articles they are used in? I think this should not be too complicated &mdash; the code for this is all in the {{tl|subpages}} system, and images are placed via {{tl|image}}. The only problem I see is that imagemaps are currently not compatible with the latter. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


::::Actually, I kind of like doing it this way. Observe that some of the wordiest articles have no definition. It's good discipline to be forced to define first. While I no longer regard metadata as optional, I recognize that isn't universal.
:How would the categories be placed on the image page?  What is the mechanism for "inheriting" the categories from the articles they are placed in?


::::For me, doing a definition, then doing Workgroups and then Related Articles, sharpens my brain when I return to the main page. Your Mileage May Vary. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:As to the plan, it sounds like a good way to know what images are being used in each workgroup or subgroup. A problem I forsee in the future is that such categories are too broad.  A better way would be able to break them down further into groups of categories, i.e. pictures used in articles on "Biology AND Chemistry" or "Biology AND Chemistry AND Health Sciences" Would that be possible? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


:::::I need to think some more. Another issue is quaternary definitions that milt likes to create.  These are definitions of a subsubpage.  See the example [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Air_pollution_dispersion_modeling/Catalogs/Models/Definition here] and all the related articles he has pointing to it. It works but the subpages template does not like it too much. It sees it as being a "definition only" although it is within a cluster.
::The more I think about it, the less sure I am about the mechanism, at least with the currently installed extensions. My initial thought was that we would need an {{tl|images}} template on each image, which could then place categories much like the subpages system does. The problem is that there is just one place where the relevant information is stored in the subpages system, and unless we introduce some metadata system for images (which would probably not be a good idea), there will always be several such places for images used on more than one page. SemanticMediaWiki, however, may come to the rescue, so by the time we really need the feature, we may actually have it. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


:::::On one hand I want to give people the flexibility to catalog and experiment as they please.  On the other hand, I don't want the subpages template to become too complex.  Mmm... maybe that horse has already bolted.  How about this, I don't want it to become unmanageable, and it is close to that now.  More often I am finding the different needs start to collide. At some point I need to do another slimming down redesign to get rid of the bloated code. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 20:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
== Re-approval of [[Gasoline]] ==


== Citation templates ==
Hi, Chris, I think that I have responded to the points raised by you and by Howard on [[Talk:Gasoline]]. Howard has asked for your help in how to do the re-approval nomination (see [[Talk:Gasoline]]). Would you please help him? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


Chris, perhaps this is something that you can correct? [[CZ:Citation templates]] lists and has examples of the citation templates.
== " Nitrogen cycle" section of [[Air]] ==


Four of them, namely Cite Journal, Cite Conference, Cite Encyclopedia and Cite News Article, result in displaying black quotation marks (i.e., "hyperlink title") around the title of the external hyperlink which is colored blue. The blue color is sufficient to make it stand out ... there is no reason to have the quotation marks as well. Can those quotation marks be removed from the coding for those citations? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Chris, I noted your very recent edits of [[Nitrogen cycle]]. I would much appreciate your looking at the "Nitrogen cycle" section of the [[Air]] article and correcting/revising/whatever you believe is needed. Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


:I just made some edits.  Is that what you had in mind? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
== Better use of subgroups? ==


::Perfect! They were all fixed except the one in "news" that reads "<nowiki>{{Citation}}</nowiki> newspaper (or magazine, journal, periodical)". It still displays the quotation marks that are not needed. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I've been creating quite a few subgroups (e.g., the specialties of internal medicine, veterinary medicine), assorted computing topics, etc. In general, I conceived each subgroup as highly correlated with a mailing list, professional organization, or some other recruitment target.


== Homonymes ==
If they are to be a recruiting and work planning tool, would it be possible to display the article status in the list of articles for the group, rather like rpl? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 06:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


Chris, is there any right way already in use to name homonym articles when they belong to two different groups of living beings? Like leptotes, Butterflyes, and Leptotes, orchids, or Scuticaria, moreys, and Scuticaria, orchids. See the whole list [http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio:Burmeister/Lista_de_hom%C3%B4nimos here]. Thanks, [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 20:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:It also might be useful to display the list of subgroups from a link on the left, just as we do for workgroups. Someone else probably has to do that.
:It has not come up before. I'd suggest you go with what you prefer and see how much people scream, if at all. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


Once you have the two page names you should probably put them on a disambiguation page and redirect the name to it. For example [[Leptotes]] would be a redirect to [[Leptotes (disambiguation)]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:The Subgroups article seems to suggest there can be subgroups of subgroups, but doesn't explain the syntax. Here would be an example:
:Ok, I'm used to that, but let's wait it to happen then. Thanks, [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:*CZ Internet applications subgroup
:**CZ World Wide Web subgroup
:**CZ Electronic mail subgroup
:**CZ Distributed computing subgroup


==Rescuing==
--[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Chris I'm trying to rescue[[Magnocellular neurosecretory cell]] for CZ I wrote it on WP then imported it here, now starting to enhance it further but it was tagged as ex WP and I can't seem to lose the tag tho I've altered the metadata - what am I misssing?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 23:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
   
: As I have already said elsewhere: The idea of workgroups, subgroups, and potential subsubgroups should not be used as a substitute for a good subject classification (we will need one!). Unless there are at least three (better more) authors interested a "group" makes no sense. --[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


== TOC-Right ==
::I'm not suggesting these as a substitute for classification. I'm suggesting these as preparing for an agreed-to recruiting campaign just to get such members, for which we clearly don't have enough current Citizens. For example, [[CZ: Internet operations]] is the specific goal of the North American Network Operators Group, which has a mailing list to which I subscribe and at which I've been active.  If I send a mail to the list soliciting membership, including a pointer to the subgroup gives potential Citizens an idea what exists as resources, what can be improved, or, perhaps under the homepage for the group, what is needed.  In like manner, I'm on a Trauma and Critical Care mailing list, which covers two subgroups. Web people tend not to be interested in email and vice versa. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


Chris, would you object if we set height to auto in {{tl|TOC-right}}? Having a 400px height creates [[Ann Arbor Railroad|a large white space]] on a page for a short TOC.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I have to agree with Peter.  Don't we have to have three interested editors before we create a subgroup? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 16:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


:Amen to the request by Russell. I have had to forego using TOC-right because of that excess white space on a  number of articles. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Actually, no -- anyone can create, although endorsement requires editors. I haven't always had an endorsing editor, although I myself have the Editor status for most except medical. Nevertheless, under "be bold", what is being broken? This is additional information and doesn't delete anything in place. 


::Fine by me. The 400 was an arbitrary pick before I realised there was a white space issue. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, if it might be ''also'' of value as an interim categorization system, how is it bad to help readers find things for which the current workgroups are at too coarse a level of granularity? Simply as an author, I find them useful to see what exists and what is needed. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


:::Done. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
==You've been Nominated!==
Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium.  They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see. To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[Archive:Citizendium Ballot for the Management Council|Nomination page]. Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC).  Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:


== Proposals ==
===Article 54===


Chris, in looking over the proposals and resolutions I've not come across anything for subworkgroups.  Have I missed it somewhere? Also, I put Noel's proposal for disambiguation into [[User:Russell_D._Jones/Resolutions_Sandbox|a resolution format]] but haven't moved it to the ed council queue yet. The proposal did not seem to have a large opposition, and Noel hasn't been here for months.   [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 13:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
*In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one).  This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
*Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions. 
*Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
*Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.  
*Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
*All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
*In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.


:Sorry Russell, I hadn't seen your message. I wouldn't have marked the proposal as inactive otherwise. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 14:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name.


::Best; felt odd about taking over someone else's proposal. Good prop, though.  [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 14:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.  


== Restart of proposal system ==
[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello. Due to a lack of activity and attention on my part, the Proposal System has ground to a halt and discussion on all proposals has stopped. I decided to clean out the system by marking all proposals as inactive and removing their drivers. This also happened to your proposal [[CZ:Proposals/Should we allow article specific subpages?|"Should we allow article specific subpages?"]]. I would be delighted if you decide that you want to take the proposal up again. You can do this by updating the proposal record, which can now be found at [[CZ:Proposals/Driverless]]. Please do not hesitate to ask if anything is unclear. Yours, [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 22:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC) (Proposals Manager)
==Re your Pinkwich5.js page==
 
   
:Hi Jitse, good to see you active again. I have signed up as driver for two of the proposals.  What is the next step on my behalf?  I think we might want to get some more feedback on the proposals  since they have been sitting a while and there are new people here now. I can then clean them up with to refelct the community input.
Chris, on your Pinkwich5.js page [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Chris_Day/pinkwich5.js], you show:
 
:A third one I am driving, the subgroup proposal, is pretty much ready to go for a vote (that one is currently in the new proposal section.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Excellent! I'll put the proposals back. I think it's a good idea to try and get some more feedback, especially for the proposal on article-specific subpages. As Russell notices, this may not be that important for the disambiguation proposal. I'll move the subgroup proposal to the Editorial Council queue soon (I'm planning to do so tonight). -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 14:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
You should fill in the fields for "next step" and "to be done by" in the proposals records, which you can now find at [[CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council]], so that we know what's happening. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 14:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
I've now moved the subgroup proposal to the Editorial Council queue; again, please fill in the fields for "next step" and "to be done by". -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 23:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:Yea!! Fist pump!! I can't wait to vote yes on this one. Thanks, Jitse and Chris, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 00:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::It needs to be written up in the form of a resolution. [[CZ:Editorial Council Resolution Subgroups|I've started the process here]]. If I'm overstepping boundaries here, Chris, delete it.  Milt, I took liberties and added you as a co-sponsor.  -- [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]]; 01:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Chris and Russell, I am pleased to be added as a sponsor. As for the draft resolution, I would like to see one more "Whereas" added to the opening section ... that says having subgroups will encourage specialist experts to join CZ by their seeing the presence of a subgroup devoted to their special field of interest. I leave the exact wording up to you Russell. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::::Done. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
::::Russell, you're not overstepping any boundaries, the more the merrier.  I just left a few more thoughts on the proposal.  I'll digest these ideas a bit more. The specifics may not matter too much with regard to the resolution since it is more the concept they will be voting on.  However, I would like to have it in an almost finalized state, we are so close. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 05:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
== Leptotes ==
 
Chris, I still have to expand the last three sections of ''[[Leptotes]]'' but, for the amount of corrections you made on them I wonder how are the first more complete ones (well, the last ones are just sketches). I am going to work on them and later will ask you (or anyone you advice me to) to read the whole article and make the English better. I also have to revise all its subpages for you based them just on my template, which is far from complete. Have to upload extra photos etc. A couple more of days to go. Thanks a lot [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
:I just worked on that one section since it did not take too much time, initially I just went in to change a typo. If you are ready i can go through the more complete sections for you too. In the future are you planning on uploading  a diagram of the phlogeny, possibly not too complete, there are so many genera, but possibly one with the alliances on? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
::The phylogenetic relationships of orchids genera is not really as well solved presently as one would wish. Many changes occur all the time as more DNA sections are tested. I do have most of clades info here but maybe it is a little bit premature to extend them down to genera. On the other hand higher rankings seem to be closer to consensus. It is a good suggestion to think about. On pt-wiki, before starting writing genera article I scketched all taxonomic structure of this familia, if you think it is the best to do here too, why not? Well, the first sections of Leptotes are mostly done, please feel free to correct then, and if I forgot anything just let me know and I'll complete it. It is my intention to write something larger than a key (and something that does not look like as one) to the species section, but I'll not fully describe them, for this is something to do on species articles. I thing making possible to identify each of them will be enough for the genus article, won't it? [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 17:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:::Yes, I see what you mean, the fluidity of the tree with all these new data can be a problem. Not to mention there can more more than one interpretation with what we already have. I'll have a look at what you have done so far.  i agree it would better to reverve more descriptive content for the species articles. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
== Bibliography question ==
 
Chris, I have some doubts about how to show the bibliography here. Primary sources would be original descriptions of the genera and species and, possibly, later revisions. Secondary sources, might be other articles and collections about the species. The thing is there is no comprehensive updated publication on ''Leptotes''. Because five species have been described recently, none of ancient and even recent books will bring them or they have different information or interpretation of the species as they are accepted now (what may be somewhat confusing to anyone not familiar with the last publications). Furthermore, reading original descriptions will not help much as the species boundaries have changed ever since. Should I make a list and comment each entry? Should I just skip this subpage as I think all main books and articles are used and mentioned as references to the article? Is there any good example of articles with extense bibliography I can check as a good example? Thanks, [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 
:Just realised I missed this.  i saw what you did and that is fine. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 
== Weird Template behavior ==


Chris, I'm confused about how this page is behaving: [[Thomas A. Bailey]].  Something, probably the Subpages template, is causing a tagline at the bottom of the page to appear "Some content on this page may previously have appeared on Wikipedia."  I completely rewrote the article and wanted to remove the wikipedia tag, but, having updated the metadata, I do not see how this tag is being generated, nor how to get rid of it.  If you could advise, I'd greatly appreciate it.  Thanks. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  // install [[User:Pilaf/Live_Preview]] page preview tool
:You need to go into edit mode and deselect the "Content is from Wikipedia?" check box at the bottom (just below the edit summary). That tag is  not controlled by the subpages template. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 01:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
::Uh, whoops, no. After every save, it reverts back to being checked. Jones 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)  Okay, what it takes is an actual edit.  Spaces don't count and won't save.  Thanks for pointing in the right direction.  Jones 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pilaf/livepreview.js'
  + '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');


== Browsing articles ==
May I ask what functionality that code provides you, and how does one implement that functionality?


Hey Chris, I see you have a list of all Biology articles put together. Is this they way they are supposed to be organized for the time being? Is there any other way of looking for a list of plants and animals articles or I will have to go all the way through the not-that-large-now but a potentialy-huge-list of articles? Is there any plans of spliting biology is smaller themes like zoology, botany, medicine, organic chemistry and such? This would make easier to place editors on the right path to evaluate articles and make easier to manage the articles so they can have some sort of rules and unity. Having a botany workgroup would allow to place some suggestions and guidance to authors writing articles such as suggested structure, taxoboxes, naming conventions, rules about caps and italics on species and families names, etc. Furthermore it will help authors and editors to know who their closest fellows are. I guess we do not have to necessarily split colaborators among the smaller categories, however, having some of future workgroups now, some that we will necessarily have in the future, will ease future categorization. I guess they are already necessary and we just have on 10k articles. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 01:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks.


:The big list of biology articles was an attempt to get some themes on the page.  I'm not sure which ones you saw but I sorted into two lists, one alphabetical and another themed.  That was in the early days. I now favour using the Related Articles pages to build themes. Look at [[Photosynthesis/Related Articles]].  You'll notice that while there are many red links there are some blue [r] links.  Those link to other related articles subpages (note they can exist without an article). For example, you can navigate from photosynthesis up to [[Chloroplast/Related Articles]] and then up to [[Cell_%28biology%29/Related Articles]].  Alternatively across to related themes or down to sub themes.  In this way I have been trying to build a network and identify the articles we to focus on. Another advantage of Related articles is we can start adding the definitions before the article is even written. 
BTW: I use WikEd, it works well in latest versions Firefox and Chrome, but not IE9 (beta) or Opera.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


:In the long term the related articles will be the primary form of navigation through our collection of articles (an alternative to using categories).  Categories here are really only for administrative purposes.  You may have noticed all the workgroup tags at the bottom, for example, we use those so you can track recent changes in a workgroup.  Likewise article can be seen by status by automatically placing categories based on the metadata.


:As too botany groups etc, definitely. We plan to have many subgroups.  You could probably justify starting an Orchid Subgroup.  She the proposal at [[CZ:Proposals/Subgroups_in_addition_to_Workgroups%3F]]. If you started an Orchid Subgroup it would probably be affilitated with Biology and Hobbies Workgroups. Articles would that the "Sub1=Orchid" field in their metadata.  That would also give you the opportunity to have a recent changes watchlist for all pages in that Subgroup.  To explore this idea more see the [[CZ:Chemical Engineering Subgroup]] or the [[CZ:Dogs Subgroup]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:Tony, I stole it all from someone's page, I forget who.  It was so I could get preview functionality.  But I don't know anything about how the code works. Sorry i can't be more helpful.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


::You might find [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1848.msg16945.html#msg16945 this thread] in the forum useful too.  There are others. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
== Vote! ==
:::Great, added them to my favorites, thanks [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Lol, Chris, I guess if I started such an especific subgroup now, I'll be grounded there alone for a long time. What about a plant taxonomy subgroup, this might focus on several kinds of related articles like description of any plants families, species and other rankings, bios of taxonomists, articles about systematics, and some about plants anatomy. I suppose this makes more sense for now as a coherent group of related subjects furthermore most  authors and editors no matter what family of plants they work on will be able to help each other and contribute to some extent on articles started by other authors, i.e. an article about John Lindey is likely to be expanded by authors working on several plants families, so will an article about roots. Should I go on and propose this subgroup? I ask because I see the creation of subgroups just as a proposal so far. This might work as a test. How does it sound? [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 03:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


::::It is just a proposal but it should be up for a vote very soon and you'll see we already have the Chemical Engineering one up and running.  You could try and get it going if you like. The idea in the proposal is that starting of one should require less red tape but the affiliation with Workgroups would require editorial input. I like the idea of a plant taxonomy one, and in our small community it might well be all we need for a while. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 03:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Chris! Did YOU Vote??? See the orange Sitenotice header! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Great, I won't be around tomorrow and Saturday but as soon as I come back will work on that. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 03:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


== Priorities ==
:The page I went to was a lot of nominations but I didn't notice a place to vote. I'll look again. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Chris, I need your advice again. What you think is better for CZ? I may go on writing one comprehensive orchid genus article every week, maybe 4 to 8 a month depending which genera are involved, or I may go and start doing the general structure of the family writing definitions and smaller drafts with one or two good paragraphs and one photo of the genera I have photos and sketches of the tribes subtribes, etc, first? The first is good for quality but it will take about 14 years to complete all genera, etc (not dealing with species articles), unless somebody comes to help. The second will take, I guess, about 12 to 18 months(again not dealing with species sketches). And, of course, I always can stop and write a good article now and then. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 12:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::That's scary!  If you couldn't find it :( You have to follow the links to the voting pages for each one.  [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:I would do what you find the most fun. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
::I second that. However, if you have specific ideas about structure, it won't hurt putting them down in something like [[CZ:Orchid systematics]] and to link there from the talk page of articles you create. This way, people who come across your work will have it easier to adjust to the system (or to criticize it if need be). --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::A good mix of the two approaches would probably keep things feeling fresh for you, Dalton.  It would sure be nice to jump start the rate of approvals, though, so I'd love to see some well developed articles that Chris or someone else could approve. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 01:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes Joe, I think you're probably right, this is the way I have been working on WP, I write some tribes and drafts about their genera and then I pick one or two genera and make them developed articles, although even the drafs are not that bad at all, this keeps the work interesting and varied. I guess next week I'll have plenty of time to start. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 03:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


== CZ invitation ==
:::I got it now. I just didn't read it properly.  I was expecting to vote on the charter but that was all long gone. I'll vote now. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Chris, I just invited to join CZ one of the best contributors of Pt-WP. He is very active and the author of some of the best articles about animals we have there, many are featured and excellent. He is a Vet. called Paulo Pareja, I am not sure what kind of application he is doing but I am pretty sure he can be a very good editor on his area. Are you dealing with of these applications too? [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 04:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Oh, didn't think of that! I changed the banner - see how bad we need YOU! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
:At present it is primarily [[User talk:Hayford Peirce|Hayford]]. I will pass on the message to him. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 05:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
::I just saw that he has applied as an Editor, not an Author. So I am unable to vet the Vet. But Larry has been approving Editors fairly rapidly these days, or so it seems to me. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Great news! --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


== Photos ==
:::::Well it would help if I had read the prolog instead of jumping right to the tables. Anyway I voted. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Chris, I have just asked Patricia Harding for using her photos here and she has sent me an E-mail in response saying:''Dalton, you may use my photographs for your educational purposes in any way you wish. I expect no reimbursement. Patricia Harding'' She is aware of the type of licence and everything. Is that enough for CZ or we do need anything more explicit? [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 17:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::There you go!  Democracy in action! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


:That should be enough.  Decide the Creative Commons license and i think there is a [[CZ:Permissions|permission subpage]] too, you could add her e-mail to that. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Perfect proof, I would say, that Democracy Is For The Birds! (hehe) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
::Ok, excellent, will do. I am not uploading any of her photos right now and don't have any one particularly in mind so far but, because she brought me photos of about 2 thousand species last time she visited, I'm pretty sure as I go on with the articles I'll upload many of them. I'm just asking my friends in advance as I talk to them. Thanks [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


== AN- masterlist ==
== Approval for [[Thylakoid]] ==


I'm not sure what you have in mind by subhead. In one sense, it's already categorized, in one sense, by being alphabetized: the first letter categorizes the platform that carries the equipment (e.g., A=aircraft, P=man-portable and usable while moving, S=ship, T=transportable (movable but can't be operated while moving), etc. "B", unfortunately retired, was "pigeon".
Chris, I prepared what Gareth calls a "short and sweet" article, [[Thylakoid]].  Will you look it over to see if you could add your name to the Approval banner? Otherwise let me know what you think it might need. Thanks.  [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


The second letter indicates the type of energy/information handled and the third what is done with it. So, xPY is some kind of tracking radar. xTC is a communications switch. xLE is a countermeasures dispenser or decoy.
== New Biology editor ==


You could probably have two columns, one for platform and one for the function described in the last two letters. Not sure how useful that would be; some equipment never fits exactly. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
We have a new Biology editor named [[User:Dorian Q. Fuller|Dorian Q. Fuller]]. Perhaps you may wish to put a welcome message on his Talk page. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


:I think this was a question I threw out a while back.  If I remember I think I saw you use subheading in another related articles subpage.  I will have to have a look around and see what prompted that question.  What about the title for the masterlist? I put associated, not sure what I even meant by that now. I imagine there is something more sensible. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
== Re [[Thylakoid]] Approval ==


::Title? List of U.S. military electronic equipment is about the best we'll do. For some reason I have never fathomed in 40-plus years of working with the system, some pieces of equipment don't get the designation, while other one-of-a-kind items do.
Chris, I responded to your comments on the Thylakoid Talk page, making a number of edits and adding images.  If it looks okay to you, will you consider adding your name ToApprove. Thanks.  &mdash;[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


::You might be thinking of subheads I did for the related article pages once I was in a technology area, such as [[electronic warfare]].  That scopes a subset well enough to break it out into warning receivers, controllers, jammers, etc. I don't think there's any way to scope the master list.  [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
== New Biology author ==


:::To get that information you're starting at the top, it's duplicating the principal table on the main page; it won't fit. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 06:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
[[User:James Parker]] is a new Biology author, a student at Edinburgh interested in molecular genetics. [[User:Bruce M. Tindall|Bruce M. Tindall]] 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


== Media files ==
== ! ==


Chris, I was looking for some photos among the uploaded files and apparently the way to do it is using the checkbox at the end of the serching tool? is that it? Is it there any other way I am missing? Are the files placed in any easy to handle category like plant photos, animals, math diagrams, people, and such? [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 19:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Chris, thanks for dropping in again, I knew you would. I have a question for you... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)


== Anomaly? ==
== Nomination for the Management Council ==


Chris, take a look at [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Civil_society/Related_Articles this].  There's two headers? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You have been nominated for a seat on the [[CZ:Management Council|Management Council]] in the [[CZ:Election July-August 2013|July-August Special Election]]. The nominator was myself. To accept or decline this nomination, please visit the [[CZ:Election July-August 2013/Nominations#Management Council candidates and links to their Statements|Nominations]] page by midnight UTC on July 27th. You may write an election statement for each if you wish (linked from the Nominations page).
:Fixed. [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 23:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


== Maybe worth preserving extending ==
The Management Council seat expires on either June 30th, 2014, or June 30th, 2015 (the successful candidate with fewest voting receiving the shorter term). In the event that [[CZ:Election July-August 2013/Referenda/1|Referendum 1]] is passed, all seats will expire on June 30th, 2014. Thanks! [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 17:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


See what I wrote at [[User talk:Mark Harris#You might find the "lemma" technique useful]]. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
== Removing Talk:ArticleName/Draft ==


== Moving a cluster ==
Thanks for your note. The one thing I haven't been able to do is completely remove the /Draft Talk pages for articles with status '0' while retaining the information in the Talk page banner. The <nowiki>{{subpages}}</nowiki> template has been altered so that clicking 'Talk' in the banner goes to the main article's Talk: page, but for articles with citable versions (former approved articles), this still redirects to Talk:ArticleName/Draft and not just to Talk:ArticleName, because only the former displays the definition, unused subpages, etc. I tried to fix this by altering the '[[:Template:To Approve Inner|To Approve Inner]]' template by removing the references to 'Draft', but this results in all the information in the banner of the Talk page disappearing if the status is '0'. I tried various other edits and templates, but no joy. Can you suggest anything? Thanks. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
:No suggestion off the top of my head.  I'll have to re-familiarize myself with the code, but I'll take a look. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


Chris, is the information you posted in December 2008 to http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:D._Matt_Innis/Archive_6#moving_clusters still correct?  I tried to move the cluster "Tom Thumb" to "Tom Thumb (fictional character)" using those instructions.  It moved the article and the Talk page.  But when I tried to display the article, it gave me a message saying that I had to revert my move and move the metadata template ''first.''  I did that and it seemed to work OK, but since that's not what your instructions say to do, I fear I am doing something wrong and have left starving little orphans in some forsaken namespace.  The new cluster ''looks'' OK, but I just wondered....  Thanks.  [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 20:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
== You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election ==


:Thanks! I have nothing further to move at the moment but I'll probably try it soon. [[User:Bruce M.Tindall|Bruce M.Tindall]] 20:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You've been nominated as a candidate in the [[User:ElectionJune2014|June 2014 election]]. Please visit [[User:ElectionJune2014/Nominations|this page]] to accept or decline each position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement for each position - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


== Spelling - change you suggested ==
== You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election ==


Hi, Chris, I had a go at this [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:English_spellings/Catalogs/Retro_B], but... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 21:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
You've been nominated as a candidate for the  post of [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]] in the [[User:ElectionJune2016|June 2016 election]]. Please visit [[User:ElectionJune2016/Nominations|this page]] to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:36, 25 June 2024

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.


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


——————————————— Chris' Talk Page —————————————

I am an editor in the biology workgroup | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Current talk page (94,080)

Notes to self

The European Physical Society

{{Quote|A|B|C|D|E}} gives:

‘ A ’

—B, C

{{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} gives 94,080
{{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} gives 94080
{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} > 3000 | large|lemma }} gives large
{{#ifexpr: {{PAGESIZE:User talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|R}} < 3000 | large|lemma }} gives lemma

See:

- /Notes to self
- /Previous discussions

movelink

{{{1}}}

  • How should the r template deal with links to catalogs? Could use a separate 4th level definition but which related articles page should it link too?
  • Apostrophe bug means that the tabs are not the correct color. Fix the code to account so the if statement compares the url code.
  • Manual placement of {{dabdef|Fossilization}} needs the basepagename added manually too. If follow Noel's description will need a field in the metadata for any article that is the target of the basename redirect. No other way to figure out the basename for the {{dambigbox}} template otherwise. Alternative is do have a much more manually (for example, {{dambigbox|the process in [[palaeontology]]|Fossilization}} ) template but probably better to have it placed automatically. Drawa figure to make this more comprehensible.
  • Need to write a summary document describing the uses of {{RD}}, {{R}}, {{Rpl}} and {{pl}}.
  • For {{R}} should probably remove the {{Dabdef}} template and just write what is required. Could then have a specific template for the disambiguation request for a definition page if it is needed (I suspect no one would use it and instead just make the disambiguation page). One exception might be Daniel in combination with the RD template at CZ:List of words with multiple uses
  • Subpages template misinterprets location on the talk approval talk page (not sure I can replicate this).
  • Think over subpages format. Possibly need subpages style as third layer template with intermediary ones to define the magicword variables? Initiated this, see {{Parameters1}} and {{Parameters2}} in conjunction with {{Subpages test}} and {{Subpage style test}}.
  • If no footer or header add specific category to note this fact, preferably no other categories too. See homeopathy/Trials example.
  • must think about the status of these sub and subsub defintion pages. Note also that they exist as definition onlys rather than recognising the existance of the basepagename.
  • Lemma articles mess up the related only category such that related articles can only exist if there is some metadata. Try and write around (is this true? not sure I can replicate this either).
  • Finish userplan simplification and more focus on workgroup participation.
  • Fix move cluster - partially done, still need to fix approval page bug (when article has no approval page or when there is already an approval page present)
  • {{Lemma}} idea, see {{Test lemma}} too. Need to utlilise the pagesize magic word so we get a lemma when there is no, or very little text in an article.
  • optional photo credit
  • Article task and notification list
  • Metadata edits always current so should tie speedydelete etc to that one page. This will get around the maintenance categories often being out of date.
  • Think more about /Catalog/Masterlists See User_talk:Aleta_Curry#Masterlist for examples. Fix the same page blank code, At present there is a capital letter requirement bug as well as need to get second string if used. Also catalog masterlists and transclusion in general. No need to maintain information at multiple sites. Is substitution bot an option?
  • Figure out utlity of transcluding refs with the r template redirects.
  • Make error boxes more concise and smaller.
  • Finish up the periodic table navigation, specifically whether element data shoul be in a switch page on on individual subpages

{{r|Nova (astronomy)#Supernova|Supernova}} gives:

  • Supernova [r]: Please do not use this term in your topic list, because there is no single article for it. Please substitute a more precise term. See Nova (astronomy)#Supernova (disambiguation) for a list of available, more precise, topics. Please add a new usage if needed.

{{r|Supernova}} gives:

  • Supernova [r]: An astronomical object exploding to a brightness similar to that of an entire galaxy. Caused by a catastrophic explosion of either a white dwarf system or an aged star about five times the size of the sun, which occurs when the star collapses; a neutron star or a black hole may be formed as a result, or the explosion results in no remaining compact object. [e]
Iteresting that the top version does not work as expected. Might need to fic the r template to asccomodate tis , if possible. 06:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


/Wanted

Need to figure out the disconnects between the rare earths periodic table of elementses and the template:periodic. Did uranium, but others need fixing too. See Uranium/Periodic table of elements

Category:False Start Move
Category:Incomplete Move
Category:DeleteMove

Too many pop-up alert messages when starting a new article

Chris, two things that have niggled me for quite some while:

  • Whenever I create a new article in my Sandbox and then use the "Start Article" link in the left-hand navigation panel:

As soon as I cut and paste the article from my sandbox into the new article (including the subpages template) and save it, three or so large popup alerts are displayed on the main article page (ahead of the article text) telling me why they have appeared and alerting me to do certain things (like filling out the Metadata template). They must be overwhelmingly confusing to a new user writing his first article. The various pop-ups are separated by a heck of a lot of white space ... so that one must scroll down quite far to even see the main article text that I just cut and pasted from my sandbox.

Can those pop-ups be made smaller, with less excessive white space between them? Or can they be combined into one pop-up and made less wordy?

  • After I've created the Definition subpage and the Talk subpage:

The Talk page has more pop-ups telling me to create the Related Articles, Bibliography and External Links subpages. Again, one must scroll down to below those pop-ups before adding a post or reading any existing posts.

Once the Main Article, Metadata template and Talk page have been created, why not autiomatically create the Definition, the Related Articles, the Bibliography and the External Links pages complete with the subpages template included in each of them? Then, instead of all those pop-ups on the Talk page, all that would be required is one sentence stating that the Definition, the Related Articles, the Bibliography and External Links subpage need to be populated as soon as possible.

I think the above suggestions would greatly simplify the task of starting a new article. What do you think? Milton Beychok 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The messages (including the whitespace) for starting an article could easily be changed in Template:Orphan subpage.
Concerning the talk page messages I have already filed a wish in CZ:Wishlist "Obtrusive requests to edit subpages". Again, they could easily be made smaller without having to create them at once. (I do not think that it is useful to create empty pages.)
However, both messages are as they are on purpose. Thus the pro-and-contra should be discussed, at least briefly.
(I agree with you, Milton) --Peter Schmitt 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Glad someone else said it. I thought it was just my ignorance, you know, like it wouldn't bother people born into the Internet era.
Not to insult the original crafters, because we've all been working in the dark on this and I still think that clusters are a brilliant idea, we just need to tweak every once in a while.
While we're at it, could we PLEASE remove Albert from the metadata fill in form? I keep re-creating page Albert Einstein and getting a 'you're messing this up' error message, which confuses me no end.
And let's remove CanE and AusE as options in the language variants. No one writes in Canadian English or Australian English, we might as well have Indian English or Trinidadian English. We only need American English and British (or Commonwealth, if you'd rather) English.
Aleta Curry 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed "Albert Einstein" from the field in the blank template. (I hope that nobody minds.) On this occasion I found a Metadata template wrongly attributed to Einstein. (There may be more. And there are quite a lot of Metadata requiring "abc=Einstein, Albert" that will need to be fixed.) --Peter Schmitt 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In retrospect, it should have been Werner Heisenberg. --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
You're just so certain of that, aren't you. Russell D. Jones 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not think these alerts should go completely but we could hide most of them behind ONE generic message per page saying "Hey, something is missing or wrong. For details, click [show].". An example for such hidden stuff is at Category:Bot-created Related Articles subpages#Index. --Daniel Mietchen 15:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I happen to like the alerts. As rarely as I create and/or move pages, I don't remember the procedures and all that has to happen; and I'm not willing to go look up those procedures every time. But having the alerts reminds me of what I need to do to get the article "off the ground." It's a checklist, but not in a checklist format. I was unaware of the Einstein Bug. I don't know that I'd like the "something's missing" format either. It smacks of "we know something you don't, he, he." If the templating can tell me what needs to be done to get the cluster to an operating standard, then it should. Russell D. Jones 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you have to place yourself in the shoes of a newbie, Russell -- all of these alerts, and *long* blank spaces down through which one has to scroll, are *baffling*. "Hey, they asked me to create an article, I did, and NOW what?! WTF is goin' on here? Where's my article?! What am I supposed to do with THIS?!" Etc. etc. Even to me, after starting maybe 150 articles, I find it annoying. And THEN there's the stoopid Talk page, with the big blank space in the middle with the mysterious boxes on the right telling us to start a Related Articles page and a Bibliography, and god knows what else! It looks terrible! Fortunately I've found an answer to this: I click on each one of these demands, go to the newly opened page, type in an "x", save it, and do the same for the next one. Which at least cleans up the Talk page. Let's ask ourselves: for *whom* are we creating these minotaurian complexes? Howard and his Lemma articles? Heisenberg and Einstein and Schrodinger and his Kat to do Thought Experiments with? or for Billy Bob Thudpucker in Las Cruces, New Mexico, who just wants to write a brief article about the third-string banjo picker of the Rolling Stones? And while we're asking questions, I wonder how many of the dozens of new Authors who arrive here and then *never* contribute anything have actually *started* to write something, and then got scared away by all the inscrutable baloney they're then *apparently* required to do? So they curse, or shrug, and go away, never to return.... Hayford Peirce 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I would consider pages started empty or with an "x" as their single content as close to vandalism. The blank spaces can be removed easily, and it should also be possible to place the talk page messages more effectively. --Daniel Mietchen 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
If the blank spaces and messages can be removed or made less intrusive, then why aren't they? Who put this stuff in there in the first place? And putting an X in there isn't remotely *close* to being vandalism -- it's exactly the same thing as going into an edited page and putting in a Null so that the damn server or whatever decides to notice that a change has been made to the Metadata page, such as when we change the ABC and then it doesn't show up on the Workgroup page until the Null has been put in. Hayford Peirce 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Can a variable be set in a user profile, which is then available to templates? The default might be "newbie". Russell would want a "verbose" mode. I would want to suppress the "suggestions"--in user design speak, "terse" or "expert" mode.

In some respects, the idea of the lemma came about as a means of entering minimum useful content without going through full cluster setup, some of which will never be relevant.

Daniel, separating the issue of removing spaces, there is no real reason to demand External Links or Bibliography. Many articles will never have them, so they can go to the list of optional pages such as Catalogs and Debate Guide. Related Articles as a suggestion, yes. The suggestion of having other articles link to this article is useful only to people that understand the overall structure, who then should not need the reminder. Now, a link to a tutorial on knowledge navigation is another matter.

Hayford, your point is well taken about scaring away newbies. The newbie mode might even suppress anything beyond the minimum and post the article to a page for more experienced people to clean up. Remember the art historian? How much work would we have saved if she had just written the article and let us do the other pages? This is one of the reasons I hesitate to make instant Editors.

Eduzendium also shows that it's rather overwhelming; Daniel's macros/templates helped a lot. If I may try an analogy, we are "cataloging". When I went to work for the Library of Congress, I was amazed to discover how much skill and knowledge is needed to create a correct catalog card. There is an enormous difference between even the scholarly users of the Library, and the professional catalogers. We are simpler at present, but does the newbie even notice the "workgroup" tab on the left? At LC, the catalogers needed to go far beyond that, but both are still controlled vocabularies. I still am confused when something is "Media" vs. "Journalism". --Howard C. Berkowitz 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I happen to think the templating here is exceptionally sophisticated and I appreciate that it can sculpt the CZ experience. I agree with the above that some of the mechanics are skewed (e.g., having to create a null edit in order for the server to update its status), but the "white space" experience, I think, is not intended for you to scroll through to get to the article; it is intended for you to fix the problem that is identified. But for people who create a lot of pages, I can see that it might be tedious to go through these hoops again and again when all you do is a null edit. Also, I see the problem of EZ. I take about 200 students a semester through the learning process of editing on the MediaWiki software and I can tell you that for a lot of them, even learning where to click to actually open the edit window can be a challenging undertaking. Complicating the scene with sophisticated templating raises the intimidation (or fear factor) of the site.
So I see three levels of users here.
  1. An author new to wikis who doesn't want to or will be overwhelmed with cluster set up. (maybe in the article creation process the article could automatically be tagged (category) with a request to set up cluster; experienced hands could take care of the list.)
  2. An experienced author who likes the process checklist to set up a cluster.
  3. An experienced cluster setter-upper who knows what to do and can't be bothered with the alerts.
Also I see issues of what exactly is needed for a bare-bones cluster set up: Metadata, certainly; definitions? maybe. Bibliography? probably not. talk page? shouldn't need a null edit. Russell D. Jones 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I took out some of the talk page alerts — feedback welcome. Will take a look at the page creation stuff later. --Daniel Mietchen 17:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Since this has evolved to a discussion of the merits and dismerits:
I think that the information seen from the subpages template is enough: It shows what subpages exist. Those who know about them and are willing to work on them can easily start there -- if they do not want then they will ignore the templates as well. (I do ...: many pages do not need external links, and many will not get a bibliography, and why create either when one has no good idea what to enter? The same is true for definitions - better no definition than a bad or incorrect one.)
Moreover, CZ explicitly encourages to start articles the "easy way" (see CZ:Start Article) -- without subpages.
-Peter Schmitt 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I now also hid the alert messages for missing metadata. The following pages are some of those that do not yet have the {{subpages}} template, so you can use them to fiddle around with the new mechanism and to provide further feedback:
Nucleoside [r]: A purine or pyrimidine base attached to a ribose (used in RNA) or deoxyribose (used in DNA). [e]
Nucleotide [r]: A repeating unit in nucleic acid polymers consisting of a purine or pyrimidine base, a pentose sugar, and a phosphate group. [e]
Lipoprotein [r]: A molecular mixture of long chains of fatty and amino acids. [e]
Critical pathway [r]: schedules of medical and nursing procedures, including diagnostic tests, medications, and consultations designed to effect an efficient, coordinated program of treatment [e]
Third molar [r]: Molars located at the rear of the mandible, commonly referred to as Wisdom teeth, that usually appear between the ages of 17 and 25 in humans. [e]
Transcendentalism [r]: Philosophical, religious, literary, cultural, and social movement associated in particular with early 19th century New England intellectuals such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and others. [e]
Hardy–Weinberg principle [r]: Add brief definition or description
Sleep initiation and maintenance disorders [r]: A range of disorders that deal with the inability to fall asleep or stay, appropriately, asleep [e]
Hypertensive urgency [r]: Add brief definition or description
Aldosterone antagonist [r]: Compounds that inhibit or antagonize the biosynthesis or actions of aldosterone, which is part of the renin-angiotensin system. [e]
Team-based learning [r]: Pedagogical techniques in which the learners work in small teams rather than as individuals [e]
Agile software development [r]: Software development methodology based on "close collaboration between the programmer team and business experts; face-to-face communication" and "frequent delivery of new deployable business value". [e]
Alpha adrenergic blocker [r]: Add brief definition or description
British Doctors Aspirin Trial [r]: Randomized controlled trial started about 1980 that was designed to test chemoprevention with aspirin for the primary prevention of vascular disease. [e]
Health Professionals Follow-up Study [r]: Add brief definition or description
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation [r]: Add brief definition or description
Autoimmune polyendocrinopathy [r]: Autoimmune disease affecting multiple organs [e]
Bacteriuria [r]: The presence of bacteria in the urine which is normally bacteria-free. [e]
Janus kinase [r]: A family of intracellular tyrosine kinases that participate in the signaling cascade of cytokines by associating with specific cytokine receptors. [e]
Serum osmolality [r]: Osmolality of the serum component of blood [e]
Vena cava filter [r]: Add brief definition or description
Rifampin [r]: Add brief definition or description
Patient discharge [r]: Add brief definition or description
Nephrotic syndrome [r]: Add brief definition or description
Hyponatremia [r]: Add brief definition or description
American Heart Association [r]: Add brief definition or description
Craniocerebral trauma [r]: Add brief definition or description
Palpitation [r]: Add brief definition or description
Apolipoprotein [r]: Add brief definition or description
Respiratory failure [r]: Add brief definition or description
Antiphospholipid syndrome [r]: Add brief definition or description
Intravenous infusion [r]: Add brief definition or description
Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19 [r]: Add brief definition or description
Chronic fatigue syndrome [r]: Add brief definition or description
Human Immunodeficiency Virus [r]: Add brief definition or description
Sick sinus syndrome [r]: Add brief definition or description
Microscopic polyangiitis [r]: Add brief definition or description
Queckenstedt's maneuver [r]: Add brief definition or description
Mechanical ventilator [r]: Add brief definition or description
Dysphagia [r]: Add brief definition or description
Natriuretic peptide [r]: Add brief definition or description
Ideal body weight [r]: Add brief definition or description
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging [r]: Add brief definition or description
Reserpine [r]: Add brief definition or description
Thrombophilia [r]: Add brief definition or description
Spontaneous abortion [r]: Add brief definition or description
Protein S [r]: Add brief definition or description
Thrombophilia [r]: Add brief definition or description
Zygapophyseal joint [r]: Add brief definition or description
Opiate dependence [r]: Add brief definition or description
Vertebra [r]: Add brief definition or description
Tramadol [r]: Add brief definition or description
Pre-eclampsia [r]: Add brief definition or description
Urinary retention [r]: Add brief definition or description
Pheochromocytoma [r]: Add brief definition or description
Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa inhibitors [r]: Add brief definition or description
Veterinary medicine [r]: Add brief definition or description
Polymyalgia rheumatica [r]: Add brief definition or description
Principal components analysis [r]: Add brief definition or description
GTP-binding protein [r]: Add brief definition or description
Intracranial hemorrhage [r]: Add brief definition or description
Adderall [r]: Add brief definition or description
Habitual abortion [r]: Add brief definition or description
Diagnostic error [r]: Add brief definition or description
--Daniel Mietchen 13:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel i think your solution of hiding things looks great. Milt does this satisfy you? I admit the templates are a pain it is important to have some kind of visual reminder that there is an incompatibility between the metadata and the article. Hopefully they are more subtle now. Chris Day 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's great, Daniel! Many thanks for getting rid of all of the baloney! I just created John Dickson Carr to test your changes and everything is terrific except ONE thing: I foresee BIG problems ahead if you leave things exactly as they now are. Once one has created the article and saved it, on top of the article one sees something like needs metadate and show. If one clicks on the metadata link, one is directed to the page explaining metadata. I will bet you that *some* people will try to put their metadata into the template shown on that page! My suggestion: change the wording to what metadata means and go here to add metadata for this particular article. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Chris, I'll comment after I next create a new article ... which I hope will be a few days from now. Thanks, Milton Beychok 08:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Ad Hayford, I changed the phrasing to avoid that kind of confusion.
Ad Milt, proper functioning of the templates can also be validated by putting the subpages template on any of the articles in the long list I prepared above.
--Daniel Mietchen 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel, that's a lot better! Now one last thing. When you click on the show button and are taken to the next page, you are shown some info at the top of the page BUT there is then a LARGE blank space beneath that info, so that unless you KNOW that you should scroll down to the bottom of the page, you won't know that you SHOULD scroll down in order to click on the "fill out the metadata" link etc. I'm sure that many people would go to this page, simply look at the top of it, wonder what the hell they were doing there, and then leave, *without* filling out any of the metadata. Can't you get rid of this useless blank space? Hayford Peirce 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Daniel Mietchen 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Great! I'll have to create another new article (sigh) to check things out one last time.... Hayford Peirce 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Daniel and Chris: I just created a new article, Crude oil desalter, and I must agree that the changes made in all those pop-up alerts is a great improvement over what they were before I started this discussion. Thanks to all. Milton Beychok 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That seems just about perfect, Daniel, at least given all the previous template stuff that you have to work with. I just created Philip Atlee and have a one *minor* suggestion. When the main article has been created, we now have a header in black that says something like "The metadata is missing; if you feeling like doing it, please create it; details" then there's a blue link that says SHOW. I suggest that you rewrite the longer stuff to say something like, "The metadata is missing; if you feel up to creating it, please click on the SHOW link to the right" and REMOVE the word "details" -- it's *slightly* confusing.... Hayford Peirce 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I made the change. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Peter, that's perfect! Kudos to you and Daniel. I really think that there is now going to be a lot less confusion! In fact, I'll drink to that! (Goes off to make a Scotch and soda....) Hayford Peirce 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving

Hi Chris. From what I can tell, you've been trying to clean up a few articles and put pages in their proper places recently. I noticed that this has resulted in a bibliography and external links page attached to an article about a different subject.

As I'm merely a lowly 'author', I don't think I am allowed to move pages. I thought about cutting and pasting, but then I thought it might be better if the pages were moved properly.. so I thought I'd drop you a wee note.

The article the subpages belong to is, I believe, United Empire Loyalists.

Cheers (and sorry for adding to your workload!). --Mal McKee 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the two files. By the way: There are no "lowly" authors. You could have made the move yourself. (You are only asked to be carful, of course.) --Peter Schmitt 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris, or someone else who knows what s/he's doing...

...could I prevail upon you to do the archiving thing with the January Write-a-Thon and leave me a blank page for February? Thanks! Aleta Curry 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More on metadata

I'm sorry to throw the proverbial spanner, boys, but this didn't occur to me before.

I have only just created a new article since the (excellent, I may add) changes to the setup.

Could I just ask, if it's possible, for the 'create a metadata page if you feel up to it' notice box thingy to appear *after* a body has 'saved' the new article, not before? At present it appears if you "preview". Now, if you click through to metadata creation on a "preview" page, you have to remember to go back and 'save' the original, or all your hard work is lost!

I haven't (yet) tried it the other way, so I don't know what appears if you ignore the 'create metadata' bit and just click 'save' first.

Aleta Curry 01:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You write: "Could I just ask, if it's possible, for the 'create a metadata page if you feel up to it' notice box thingy to appear *after* a body has 'saved' the new article, not before?". I'm not sure I understand this exactly. How do you normally start a new article? Chris Day 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This problem/request was not related to the "Who's on First?" metadata problem, right? Chris Day 04:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Chris, I think I recognize Aleta's concern. Once the subpages template goes into a new article, "preview article" brings up the metadata prompts. From bitter experience, if I write a new article of any appreciable length, I make sure to save before inserting the template. It's not hard to get lost in the prompts, decide not to fill them in, but neglect to save and thus lose the work. --Howard C. Berkowitz 05:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand, I never use preview so I have not been down that route. All I can suggest is bold letters saying first save your work. Would that be sufficient? Chris Day 05:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I just added a warning message to save. Hope it helps. However, one will never be able to prevent all mistakes. If there are too much warnings they will not be read anymore ... Probably one has to make one's mistakes, and learn from them.
Preview can be usefull. I sometimes use preview, and sometimes not. Sometimes I wished I would have used it instead of showing my stupidity in the history ;-) --Peter Schmitt 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Howard got it in one. I'm not as brave as you are, Chris, I almost always use 'preview', I look entirely too foolish otherwise. Trust me, no one should see my 'scrap paper'! The down side, of course, is how many times I forget to actually 'save'--sigh Aleta Curry 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
p.s. Chris, was the Who's on First metadata problem caused by my mistake in the status field? Let's face it: I'm a genius! Aleta Curry 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Just a hint: If one has forgotten to save it is often still possible to go back to that edit page using the the browser's back button. --Peter Schmitt 12:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Er...yes, but when I say 'forgotten', I really mean it. Like, I've shut down the computer, turned off the generator, taken the dogs for a walk, had my hair done (okay, that's a lie), made dinner...and then I come back next day wondering where that incredibly excellent 240 page cluster that I started is! Aleta Curry 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Fair Use" upload summary

Chris: In the last few days, I uploaded two logos by claiming Fair Use. They were the logos for ASTM International (ASTM) and for International Organization for Standardization (ISO). When I went to CZ:UPLOAD / I am not the copyright holder / This use of the work is Fair Use, I arrived at the upload file form to be filled out. It has a one-line window in which to write the rationale for claiming Fair Use (i.e., the window labeled "Notes").

Here is what I wrote as my rationale: "The logo image is used to identify the International Organization for Standards. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary."

It was very difficult to write all of that into a one-line window and to check it for spelling, grammar and omissions. Is there any way to revise that upload file form so that the "Notes" window is at least 6-8 lines wide?

By the way, most of my above rationale was borrowed from WP ... because I could find no similar rationale help in CZ. Milton Beychok 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a reply ing the forum. But in case you missed that. For me, I use the upload primarily as a decision tree to get the correct templates. I often make changes and additions to them after the upload is complete. In this case that might be the best way to go.
As to the technical suggestion of adding a larger edit window. I would, if I could, but I'm not sure where to make such changes. Or what to change. Possibly Peter might have a better idea? Chris Day 04:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) test

Thanks for getting the water freezing point straightened out (if it just stays that way).

Thanks, Chris. Milton Beychok 06:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New template

Hi, Chris. Thanks for your offer of further help (not that I can find it...)

Can you make the unknown letter at Template:Common misspellings prolog show itself, please?

Ta! Ro Thorpe 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are you not seeing it? Chris Day 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand your point now. It will not show on the template itself. But look at the page where the template is used and you will see the correct letter there. Chris Day 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought I was doing - but anyway, it all seems to be fine now - thanks. Ro Thorpe 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pedia tricks

Thanks for following up on it! --Daniel Mietchen 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories, bots and templates

Categories can be removed fairly easily by a bot. Let me know if that would be worth it (haven't found the page you use to track these). Also, could you please take a look at {{Basic elemental def}}, perhaps in conjunction with User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Elements? I am thinking of prepopulating the empty pages via preload templates, but would appreciate some more input. --Daniel Mietchen 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

If the bot can do that, great, although It might be tricky to program since it might not be able to predict every type of category or combination to remove? I just made an addition to your template. Check it out on an element page and see what you think. Chris Day 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The bot can in principle be given a list of applicable categories, or wildcards could be used in defining their names. No need to program for combinations — it will simply edit the same page again when working on the next category.
Thanks — the addition is valuable, but the current setting (not mine, by the way) is not compatible with {{r}}:
Neptunium [r]: Add brief definition or description
--Daniel Mietchen 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand. i thought you wanted to populate the element article pages but you're actually after a template to add the definition. I'll modify it as best i can, will probably have to have the definition pages {{BASEPAGENAME}} added as a parameter, i.e. {{Basic elemental def|Parameter}}, since it will not transclude properly otherwise. Chris Day 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I tweaked it enough now that i think it will work with the r template and also with a lemma article. Chris Day 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, are you trying to modify the template so it will work for the "Hydrogen (element)" format? I noticed that you had all those links on your page too. Chris Day 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel and Chris, I hope you do not mind, but I wonder if it would not be better -- and require the same (or even less) effort -- to create the definitions with a bot (using the same logic as in the template)? Or even manually copy the definitions from Daniel's page to the definitions? --Peter Schmitt 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know for sure but I was thinking that Daniel might be planning to use a substitute script along those lines? Chris Day 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I am not too eager on using a bot for just those 100 elemental definitions (too time-consuming, relatively speaking, to get it approved), so I thought I would create those pages by means of preload templates, similar to the CZ:Eduzendium course setup wizard. Ideally, there would be no piping (e.g. by integrating {{Basic elemental def}} with {{r}}.
I do plan, however, to set up a bot that creates lemma articles in place of empty pages for which a definition already exists.
On a related note, I am inclined to think that {{r|foo}} should also display Foobar/Definition if Foo redirects to Foobar and Foo/Definition does not exist. No idea how to make the template recognize a redirect page, though. --Daniel Mietchen 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
As for Hydrogen vs. Hydrogen (element), I would prefer the latter to be applied throughout, but think that would be up to the chemists to decide. My idea was just to prepare the templates such that a coherent system can be easily achieved. --Daniel Mietchen 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think using (element) is not a bad idea, but I'm not a chemist.

As for {{r|foo}} using foobar definition if there is a redirect from foo->foobar, I agree that might be good but I'm not sure if it is possible to read the target if the redirect? You do know you can pipelink with the {{R}} template?

With regard to populating the pages. If you want to use all the subpages with the properties for each element they will have to be moved to the new name, i.e. Boron/Atomic number to Boron (element)/Atomic number if you do not want to have a parameter in the template. This could be done easily by moving every element along with all its subpages. I'll modify the {{Basic elemental def}} template so it does not need a piped parameter. Chris Day 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

May I remind you that using single properties subpages is a disputed matter? --Peter Schmitt 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. So far, I am just asking questions of Daniel and tinkering with the template since I'm not 100% sure of what he is proposing. One thing I do think is important is to have a basic page for each element. Chris Day 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of that too, and it actually inspired me to have another look at the matter, thus prompting my tinkering with these templates. The point here, however, is to have a consistent format, which can be achieved by means of a template transclude predefined content onto the definition page, and it can easily be adapted to either the current system with multiple properties subpages or the discussed alternative with one centralized metadata-like page. --Daniel Mietchen 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
On pipelinking, I am well aware of that too, but many non-bot starts of Related Articles pages are made by simply dumping in a list of related topics, formatted using {{r}}, without much regard for which articles actually exist. So we often have the case described above that {{r|foo}} does not bring about a definition, even though one exists at [[foobar/Definition]], when Foo is a redirect to Foobar. I am wondering whether this is the way it should be. --Daniel Mietchen 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Not related to the chemistry stuff but well within the scope of this section: Can you please take another look at Template:Bot-created related article subpage, which I attempted to modify such that it accommodates Lemma articles? Example to play around with: Biomedical engineering. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, looks good to me. What is your rationale that these need to be distinguished? So we can fortify our navigation network with lemma related articles pages? Chris Day 17:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Does not look good to me — Category:Lemma Bot-created Related Articles subpages is full of articles which do have metadata. I suspect there is a problem with a wrongly placed pipe in the template or with the way I check for the presence of the Metadata page, but I couldn't figure out the details.
The rationale for this distinction is that if there is no metadata, then the names of the categories at the page will be broken, since they are by default composed from the metadata. And yes, extension of the related articles grid is the purpose of the bot, which can be configured to work with lemmas too. --Daniel Mietchen 20:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Strange. I'll double check. Chris Day 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
That was it. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Automated handling of content - doubts

Sorry that I am negative. But I have serious reservations against any automatic handling of content. Providing a standardized definition for the elements is rather easy (and in principle I like thinking of the logic behind such programs) but I don't think that they are really useful. Giving the atomic number in the definiton is trivial, but not very informative. Some element specific information (about its importance, or some peculiar property, etc.) is much better. Now, of course, the generated definition can alway be replaced. -- but it is much more likely that a non-existing definition is provided than that an existing one (correct though simplistic) is rewritten.

Concerning the idea to automatically convert all definitions without main page to lemma articles: I think there is a legitimate use for lemma articles (ask Howard), for definitions to redirects, but also for definitions without a page (only intended to be used in Related Articles). The difference is that -- if the page does exist -- a link to that page will look correct though it may be better to link to another page. This decision cannot be made by a bot. (For the same reason I think that one also should be careful with redirects and only use them for "correct" titles. but not to lead from incorrect titles to a correct one.)

--Peter Schmitt 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I disagree with the first paragraph, while I am not sure I understand the second. But once we have a coherent template system, I wanted to bring the matter to the forums anyway. --Daniel Mietchen 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of lemma articles is discussed in this dedicated thread at the Forums. --Daniel Mietchen 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

About National Institute of Standards and Technology and metadata templates without provisions for subgroups

Chris, the National Institute of Standards and Technology was written before there were any subgroups and the Metadata template specified only the Physics and the Chemistry workgroups. I added the Engineering workgroup.

The was no place to add a subgroup, so I added sub1, sub2 and sub3 to the template. Then I specified Chemical Engineering as sub1.

The bottom of the Main Article then listed the categories as Physics, Chemistry, Engineering and Chemical Engineering as it should. The National Institute of Standards and Technology shows up in the Physics and Chemistry and Engineering workgroups as it should do ... but I cannot get it to show up in the Engineering and Chemical Engineering subgroups despite twice making a null edit to the article's Talk page. Can you please get it to show up in the Engineering workgroup and the Chemical Engineering subgroup?

There are a good many of the older articles that have metadata templates which don't have sub1, sub2 and sub3 in them ... so perhaps they should be added somehow. Milton Beychok 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Milt the null edit needs to be made to the article. i just did that and it is now listed as you'd expect. Chris Day 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As to the sub1-3 field holders, yes they were a fairly recent addition so many metadata pages will not have them. Possibly Daniel could add them with a bot? Chris Day 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one false move for man ...

Chris, I think I understand that a page is placed in Category:False Start Move when the metadata template is not completed, but can you explain how United States War Department shows up in that category when that page is only a redirect? Russell D. Jones 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This is normally because it was in the false move category and then the metadata gets cleaned up, thus it is out of the category. Now the flaw in our system (auto placement of categories), the article is listed in the categories that exist when it was last edited. It should be removed from the category after a minor edit to the article. Chris Day 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I just looked into this a little more closely and it is actually due to it being on the talk page (See Talk:United_States_War_Department). Citizendium differs from other wiki's in that a talk page will show up on a category without the name space being listed. BUT, sometimes you can distinguish this since it will be listed in the category under T. The reason we do this is that many of the housekeeping categories are placed on the talk page, so such categories do not have every entry starting with "Talk:". Chris Day 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah-ha, I've got it. Thanks for the clarification. Any reason why I can't do a clean-up? Russell D. Jones 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
No reason, that is what you should do. The subpages template should be removed from that page as it does not work on talk pages of redirects. The talk page could be speedydeleted if it is empty too. Chris Day 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I've discovered that some Lemma articles are showing on this list. Any advice there? Russell D. Jones 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I just jogged Evolution of language and it got removed from the category. I'm not sure why it was in there, looking at the history there is no clear reason. All I can imagine is that Daniel added the subpages template to start the lemma article before the he created the definition page. In that order there would be a false start category that would disappear with the creation of the definition subpage. In such instances the article will always need to be jogged with a null edit or it will remain in the false start category, even though the category no longer appears on the page. Chris Day 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Correct guess on Evolution of language, Chris. I did that on purpose to test how the {{subpages}} machinery would react to this unusual order of page creation, and think we should somehow include this scenario into the phrasing of the warning messages, depending on whether a definition already exists or not. --Daniel Mietchen 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quirk of the functionality: If a user creates a page all in one edit with a subpages template, the page will get categorized as "False Start Move" but it will not show up on Category:False Start Move. It requires two edits to the article page before it will show on the category page. See Declaration of the United Nations. Russell D. Jones 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So presumably an edit only uses categories that are already on the page. I wonder if that is the case with manually added categories? By the way, these are general issues with the wiki software. I think you'll find they exist on your in-house wiki, as well as wikipedia. Obviously this is less of a problem when there are a lot of edits. One of the advantages of having a ton of vandalism?? Chris Day 22:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
I just tried creating a page and adding the category manually. In that case the edit does register correctly. So it is the auto-generated categories, only, that need the double kick. What a pain. Chris Day 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow

Noticing changes that you and Howard made to the "Criticism of US foreign policy" article -- excellent idea to make military spending as a % of GDP; you guys are pros. Impressed.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 01:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Error correction/s

There needs to be a better way of handling external complaints than going public with the emails on the Talk page. My suggestion is to leave the 'complaint' on the appropriate workgroup forum or forward the post to the appropriate mailing list. The workgroup mailing lists and workgroup forums are currently under-utilised. 01:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Chris Day 01:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
There are no errors in the article btw. Listen is a totally different group/line-up to Obs-Tweedle. Noddy Holder as 'roadie' is referenced. Meg Ireland 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Having no access to the images I can't comment further, however since my information was gleaned off Bill Bonham who played in the band Obs-Tweedle, I'm fairly confident his information is correct. Meg Ireland 04:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Chris, I just spoke again to Bill Bonham who confirms the article I wrote as being correct. Bill Bonham knows Noddy Holder very well. You can visit Bill Bonham's MySpace site at http://www.myspace.com/quiffo . Meg Ireland 08:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I uploaded the pictures on the messageboard. For the record I don't doubt your sources. Chris Day 17:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Some of those newspaper clippings appear to have been taken from scans on the LedZeppelin.com forum thread called 'HOBBSTWEEDLE' (yes I know, an incorrect name by another poster) originally scanned by a guy in Birmingham called Chris. I was a part of that thread discussion on Obs-Tweedle. I might reuse some of those clippings for the Listen article, rather than the Obs-Tweedle article since they are two different bands. While it may have been possible Noddy Holder was roadie for Listen, my insertion of Robert Plant's quote was based on Plant's recollections which are referenced from Q magazine and repeated in subsequent newspapers, and from what I could gather from my interview with Bill Bonham in 2009, before I composed the article. On the quote about Bill Bonham playing keyboards with Hari Kari while Robert Plant was singing for Obs-Tweedle, here is an email response I received from Bill this morning: 'Yes I was in Hari Kari but when I was in Hari Kari was way after Terry Reid and Led Zep came out with there first album.. Obs-Tweedle split when I joined Terry Reid or some time after I left' He is clear he didn't join Hari Kari until after Obs-Tweedle folded. Meg Ireland 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(Unindent) I don't know anything about the pros and cons of the info in this article or of the worth of the newspaper clippings -- I merely brought them to your attention. But please review the CZ guidelines on what Wikipedia loves to kick around as Original Research. Our own strictures are less rigid, but they *do* exist. Larry, for instance, made it clear, when I first joined, that the fact that Robert A. Heinlein told me that one book or another was his best book could NOT be incorporated within the Heinlein article. He encouraged me to write a Topic Informant article, however, (TI:Hayford Peirce/Heinlein,) with this information in it, and a link to that article now appears at the top of the Heinlein Talk page (Talk:Robert A. Heinlein). It may be that some of the information in this article should be handled in the same manner.Hayford Peirce 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not original research. The quote, which seems to have sparked that email, is referenced from a reliable published source (according to WP standards). External references are used throughout the article. There are no errors in the article. This appears to be a case of someone who confused Listen with Obs-Tweedle and/or dislikes the fact that Robert Plant referred to their idol Noddy Holder as a roadie. Nothing is 'made up' or unverifiable for this article. Meg Ireland 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not see any reason to exclude "personal communications" (they are used in scientific literature, too). Why should a personal communication to an author be excluded (if labelled as such) when a source that cites a personal communication would be accepted? --Peter Schmitt 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the source citing it is deemed to have checked and certified it. Authors on CZ have no recognized authority to do that. I don't know whether editors do. Peter Jackson 17:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Quintile

Chris, this is a minor issue, but it could lead to establishing some general policy. By accident, I noticed that you deleted Talk:Quintile (after copying part of it to Talk:Percentile). I left it with the redirect because it is part of the history of this page, and it does not hurt if it remains there. (My tendency is to preserve as much history as possible, e.g., by blanking rather than deleting.) --Peter Schmitt 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for helping me to edit that list. Nick Bagnall 16:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyedit to protected page

Hi Chris,

in {{Community}}, can you please change the "Main Page" in 

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|<small>[[Main Page]]</small>

to "Welcome Page"? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, that was a cascading protect from kim's talk page. I edited her page and it seems to have removed the protection on that template. I'll change it though too. Chris Day 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

CZ:Request Approved Article Copyedit

Chris, with Matt being AWOL for the past 10 days or so, the list of approved articles needing copy edits is growing. I have about 10 approved articles listed there myself. Can you fix those?

If you need a volunteer to do some of that work, either temporarily or permanently, I am available ... but I will need some tutoring on how to do it. Regards, Milton Beychok 19:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your prompt response. There is still Chemical engineering where Meg Ireland corrected spelling of succesfully to successfully. Could you do that one as well? Thanks, Milton Beychok 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that was specific to the draft as it is not in the main article. Chris Day 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Intron

Hi I found some new info about Intron but I wasn't sure if you wanted to include it in the article; currently it's in the sandbox User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox7 plus some pictures and diagrams. Feel free to include it; I'm not a scientist, and I found that while I couldn't make much sense of the technical articles, when reporters explained it, I could grasp the basics.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 04:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good Thomas. Feel free to paste it into the article. I can work on it there. Chris Day 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks Chris, like I'm not a scientist and so it's cool that you can catch glitches which reporters make.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Image:Gasoline Fuel.jpg

Chris, I don't know how you did it, but your merge of the two photos is very much better than my original one. Thanks very much. Milton Beychok 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When I cut out the gas pump I made sure the selection tool cut all the white out. I merged the two images using the anti-alias option so the edges of the pump did not look too sharp. Third, I brightened up the pump to make it a little more striking. Glad you like the changes. Chris Day 20:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Intersection of cat adoption and tall tale?

Tall tail?

(I am not making this up: Mr. Clark rejected tuna, wet disgusting cat food, and his expensive hypoallergenic dry cat food. He insisted on going upstairs into the general cat area, and into the bin of regular dry cat food -- in which he then went to sleep.) Howard C. Berkowitz 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

2012

I'm kind of looking for a green light before working on "2012" -- not that I'm that interested in it, but wondering what the policy is and whether others here will support it. It's a hot article on WP even though it's kind of a stupid subject (futurism stuff) as well as a movie. Wondering if there's some kind of "approvals in advance" place to get permission for dubious articles.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 17:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know much about it. But it would be no worse than an article about UFO's or astrology. Chris Day 18:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks, so you're saying if I write it, that you don't think I'll have problems with it. Thanx, Chris.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't think of a reason why there would be a problem. Chris Day 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Asking for your comments

Chris, would you look at the "Nitrogen cycle" section of the Air article ... and make any revisions you think are needed? Thanks, Milton Beychok 19:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you improve Image:Venturi Tube.png ?

Chris, the only drawing program I have is Microsoft's Paint program that is included with Windows XP. As you can see in Image:Venturi Tube.png, the lines that are not horizontal or vertical (that is, the angled lines) are quite "jagged". Does your program create angled lines that are not jagged? If so, could you replace the jagged lines in Image:Venturi Tube.png with lines that are not jagged? It would greatly improve that image. Milton Beychok 05:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Milt, there are multiple free graphics packages out there that far exceed the capabilities of MS Pain(t) — to the point of being hypercomplex. Two that probably merit a look for diagrams like these are Open Office Draw and Gimp. --Daniel Mietchen 08:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel. One of these days I will take the time to download one of those and learn how to use it. Milton Beychok 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Chris, thanks for fixing the Venturi image for me. It looks much better now. Milton Beychok 17:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your talk at the New Communication Channels for Biology Workshop 2008

Hi Chris, can you send me your slides from that workshop, or put them online? They may be useful for drafting the OKCon 2010 paper. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 18:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, i'd forgotten about that. I'll root them out. Just looked on this computer and no sign, it must still be on my semi-dead (screen is broken) lap top. I'll boot it up tomorrow and see if i can find anthing on its hard drive. Chris Day 03:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I put the slides up here for everyone to work on. --Daniel Mietchen 09:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CC vs. PD

How, for Pete's sake (as some would say), can I upload (and correctly credit) an image directly as PD? The only option I saw to do so always leads to it being labeled as CC0-1.0, and at least in this set of three images (which shall serve to illustrate the Panton Principles), I do not want to have any name attached to it, because that is the message of these Principles. --Daniel Mietchen 14:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the upload file link and it seems to be click on the "I am not the copyright holder" tab. Then select the "in the public domain" option. Then for the license select "creator has released into the public domain". Are you not seeing those options when you do the upload? Chris Day 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I do, though this time I went there via "I am the copyright holder" and "Release into the Public Domain", which gave the CC0 attribution. I think the problem with the upload wizard is that Caesar left when he was mostly but not entirely done with it. --Daniel Mietchen 14:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
[EC] OK, I just followed the "I am the copyright holder fork" and now I see how you got to "Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal License". I guess that is equivalent to public domain? But this is beyond my ken. If Caesar was not done with it, possibly the PD license option should be at that point too? Chris Day 14:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The two are practically equivalent in the US but CC0 is more universal, since most jurisdictions do not have PD, but all have copyright law. Anyway, CC0 means that also no BY is needed. --Daniel Mietchen 14:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I've just spent 10 frustrating minutes at Image:Drink to Yesterday.jpg trying to "Upload a new version of this file". Can't be done. All you can do is start all over again and upload another file under another name AND fill out all the @#$%^&* information that you had to do with the first one! And unless you're maybe a combination of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, you can't "Edit this file using an exterior application" either. Geez! Hayford Peirce 00:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
That doesn't sound right. Are you using the link titled "Upload a new version of this file" just above the Links section title. Chris Day 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Hayford Peirce 00:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
PS -- I use Chrome as my browser. Could that be affecting things in some mysterious way? Hayford Peirce 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
If you choose the new file to upload and then save, leave everything else blank, then it will be fine. You'll see. It will ask you if you want to ignore all warnings. Select yes and then you're done. Chris Day 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It keeps telling me that I need License info, and the license info isn't what I want. And it won't work unless I choose a license. No way. Hayford Peirce 01:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I just tried it, and it works fine with jpg, but when I use .png, I get "The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again." --Daniel Mietchen 01:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
It still doesn't work. I have, on my computer, a *smaller* version of the present image. It has the same name and is a .jpg. A few minutes ago I had a slightly different name on it, but it was the same .jpg file. It doesn't matter *what* it's called. No matter *what* I do, I am told that I MUST choose a license. If I don't choose a license, it will NOT upload the file. Period. Hayford Peirce 01:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I just tried and it worked fine. All I did was choose the new file on my desktop. Then save. Then chose ignore all warnings. That's it. All the files data and licenses are intact. Chris Day 02:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
A box doesn't pop up and tell you that you have to choose a license? Do you have a Papal dispensation, or what? Hayford Peirce 03:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I've never seen that and I've updated images at CZ quite a few times. Chris Day 04:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Off to bed, but tomorrow I'll do a screen capture of the box I get and I'll email it to you. Don't know what else to do. Hayford Peirce 04:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Space Invaders

Sorry, I thought I'd got the hang of new pages but apparently not. I've seen the changes you made and will follow the example when making futher pages. --Chris Key 00:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Lemma formatting

What do you think of displaying the definition above the instructions in lemma articles? I just did the switch (also this one). --Daniel Mietchen 11:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Somehow, the definition pages do not display properly now, and I guess {{subpages}} would have to be remodeled to accomodate the change I made. Do you think that's worth it? --Daniel Mietchen 19:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted both changes and moved the testing to the test wiki: Lemma, Def only. --Daniel Mietchen 01:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Could not pinpoint exactly what the problem was, so I went back to normal for the time being. On a related note, what do you think of merging {{Def only}} and {{Lemma}}? --Daniel Mietchen 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I would not be against that. I'll have a look and see how it can be streamlined, or do you already have a plan? Chris Day 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I do, but can't put it in words easily (other than moving the conditionals from {{Def only}} to {{Lemma}}). Will thus give it a go on the test wiki, and let you know how things go. --Daniel Mietchen 07:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I merged them and added some categories, which makes {{Def only}}, Category:Definition Only and Category:Related Articles Only redundant. Please check and adapt as you see fit. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 11:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Things work fine on the test wiki, but the display problem that started this thread interfered when I did bring the changes over to the live wiki (where {{subpages}} has not been updated yet. So please transfer this edit to {{subpages}} (possibly with this typo correction) and then revert this edit. Test clusters: Glia, Open Knowledge Foundation. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 12:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, i made the change but is the definition page the way you intended? Chris Day 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed and streamlined. --Daniel Mietchen 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Nice work Daniel, that's a big improvement. Chris Day 23:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The section on "Nitrogen cycle" in the Air article

Chris, about two weeks ago I asked you to look at the section on "Nitrogen cycle" in the Air article and revise it in any way you felt was needed. I know you've been busy, but I would still appreciate your review as a biology editor of that that section. Thanks in advance. Milton Beychok 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Milton I looked at the Nitrogen cycle article and proposed a revamping here in a sandbox: User talk:Thomas Wright Sulcer/sandbox2 I expanded it but I'm not a scientist or technically-minded like you or Chris so I'm deferring to your judgment. I'm finding my paint program doesn't work well, so I hand-drew a diagram, but still am unhappy with it. I'm wondering if there's a good paint program that is simple, powerful, works with Ubuntu Linux so I can do better quality stuff here.--Thomas Wright Sulcer 02:25, 27 March 201UTC)
Thomas, my request of Chris was simply to take a look at the small section of the Air article that briefly describes the nitrogen cycle ... briefly on purpose.
What you have written in your sandbox2 is a an expansion of the stub article on the Nitrogen cycle ... which I very much agree needs to be expanded, but which is out of my field of expertise. So I don't believe that I am really qualified to comment on your expansion of that stub article. I would suggest that, in addition to Chris Day who is a biology editor, you contact Anthony Sebastian who is also a Biology editor and quite active. I would also point out that a very good drawing of the cycle is available in Wikimedia Commons [1] where it is designated as being in the public domain. Other good drawings can probably be found with a bit of Googling. Regards, 03:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Does Anthony Sebastian have the "Nitrogen cycle" article on his watchlist? If so he'll see a note I placed there. I did this article first so that I would be in a position to help you with the "Nitrogen cycle" section of the "Air" article. But I'm not an expert by any stretch either. Good idea to get the picture on Wikimedia Commons -- my drawing didn't come out as well as I had hoped, but I still have illusions of being an excellent CZ sketch artist!--Thomas Wright Sulcer 14:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

False start move

Hi Chris, I think Category:False Start Move is overpopulated, and at least partly with what should rather be in Category:Lemma Article, e.g. pages like Citizen science/External Links. As far as I can tell, the culprit is the if nesting in {{Subpages}}, so I can't fix it. Please check. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 23:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, is this still a problem? There did not seem that many there or is that because you have processed them? From what i could see they were mostly left over subpages or lemma like pages without a definition. Chris Day 18:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I see what you mean, now that i have looked more closely at the example of Citizen science/External Links. At present the only lemma subpages supported are /Related Articles and /Definition. Are you suggesting that we should allow /External Links and /Bibliographies too? Chris Day 18:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and Video. In principle, I would like to have all subpages enabled for Lemmas. This allows to collect materials in the right place even though the article has not been written yet. --Daniel Mietchen 18:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll look at the coding and see if it is an easy fix or not. If so I'll do it as soon as possible. Chris Day 18:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
If you would unlock it over on the test wiki, I could join the coding. --Daniel Mietchen 19:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I have changed and tested it on the test wiki. Please transfer it here. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! My edit also contained a typo correction. --Daniel Mietchen 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature for botany articles

Plant hormone or plant hormones or plant growth hormones?

  • Auxin or auxins?
  • Cytokinin or cytokinins? The animal article is cytokines.
  • Gibberellin or giberellins?
  • Tissue culture
    • Plant tissue culture

I'm beginning to think I need to become your student... --Howard C. Berkowitz 22:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been his student for years...Anthony.Sebastian 03:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Checklist22

Hi Chris, please comment on this, either there or here. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 19:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You just want to know about the test link? That was a hyperlink to walk authors through a move cluster sequence. I did that by opular demand to try and make the process of moving a cluster more efficient and transparent. It never really did serve the purpose as things got complicated if the article was moved before the metadata template. Since then, it got broken with a mediawiki update and i could not figure out a good work around. I had forgotten it was still available as an option. We should probably just remove and delete all the templates associated with it. Chris Day 19:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, fixed. --Daniel Mietchen 20:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Please join with me in urging Hayford not to resign

Chris, see my plea to Hayford not to resign as Constable (on his Talk page). Please join me! Milton Beychok 20:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing-defined references test

As of September 2009, the Cite.php extension was modified to support list-defined references. These can be implemented with the parameter to the {{reflist}} template, or by using a pair of HTML tags (<references> and </references>) in place of the <references/> tag. These reduce clutter within articles, by putting all the citation details in the section at the end where the footnotes are displayed. As with other citation formats, these should not be added to articles that already have a stable referencing system, unless there is consensus to do so. When in doubt, use the referencing system added by the first major contributor to use a consistent style.

The example below shows what list-defined references look like in the edit box:

The Sun is pretty big,<ref name=Miller2005p23/>
but the Moon is not so big.<ref name=Brown2006/>
The Sun is also quite hot.<ref name=Miller2005p34/>
==Notes==
{{reflist|refs=
<ref name=Miller2005p23>Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 23. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
<ref name=Miller2005p34>Miller, E: ''The Sun'', page 34. Academic Press, 2005.</ref>
<ref name=Brown2006>Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", ''Scientific American'', 51(78):46</ref>
}}

Below is how this would look in the article, once you had previewed or saved your edited section:

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

Notes

  1. ^ Miller, E: The Sun, page 23. Academic Press, 2005.
  2. ^ Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46.
  3. ^ Miller, E: The Sun, page 34. Academic Press, 2005.

Defined references must be used within the body; unused references will show an error message. However, non-list-defined references (i.e. ordinary footnote references fully enclosed with <ref> and </ref> tags) will display as normal along with any list-defined ones.

The Sun is pretty big,[1] but the Moon is not so big.[2] The Sun is also quite hot.[3]

  1. ↑ Miller, E: The Sun, page 23. Academic Press, 2005.
  2. ↑ Brown, R: "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51(78):46
  3. ↑ Miller, E: The Sun, page 34. Academic Press, 2005.
Chris, I tried this because it is such a great improvement ... but I cannot get it to work. Milton Beychok 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I tried it in my WP sandbox and it works perfectly. But the identical edit box coding does not work in my CZ sandbox. Has that Cite.php extension revision been implemented for CZ? It would greatly improvement the readability of edit boxes and make editing revisions, rewrites, etc. very much easier. Milton Beychok 23:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you with regard to why we want this here. I'm assuming this does not work here at CZ, I was testing it here. The text above might be confusing, it is a direct cut and paste from wikipedia. I'll ask Dan if he knows what to changes need to be made to the Cite.php exension here to make this workable.Chris Day 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories for images

What do you think of letting images inherit the categories of the articles they are used in? I think this should not be too complicated — the code for this is all in the {{subpages}} system, and images are placed via {{image}}. The only problem I see is that imagemaps are currently not compatible with the latter. --Daniel Mietchen 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

How would the categories be placed on the image page? What is the mechanism for "inheriting" the categories from the articles they are placed in?
As to the plan, it sounds like a good way to know what images are being used in each workgroup or subgroup. A problem I forsee in the future is that such categories are too broad. A better way would be able to break them down further into groups of categories, i.e. pictures used in articles on "Biology AND Chemistry" or "Biology AND Chemistry AND Health Sciences" Would that be possible? Chris Day 21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the less sure I am about the mechanism, at least with the currently installed extensions. My initial thought was that we would need an {{images}} template on each image, which could then place categories much like the subpages system does. The problem is that there is just one place where the relevant information is stored in the subpages system, and unless we introduce some metadata system for images (which would probably not be a good idea), there will always be several such places for images used on more than one page. SemanticMediaWiki, however, may come to the rescue, so by the time we really need the feature, we may actually have it. --Daniel Mietchen 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re-approval of Gasoline

Hi, Chris, I think that I have responded to the points raised by you and by Howard on Talk:Gasoline. Howard has asked for your help in how to do the re-approval nomination (see Talk:Gasoline). Would you please help him? Thanks, Milton Beychok 20:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

" Nitrogen cycle" section of Air

Chris, I noted your very recent edits of Nitrogen cycle. I would much appreciate your looking at the "Nitrogen cycle" section of the Air article and correcting/revising/whatever you believe is needed. Thanks, Milton Beychok 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Better use of subgroups?

As you may have noticed, I've been creating quite a few subgroups (e.g., the specialties of internal medicine, veterinary medicine), assorted computing topics, etc. In general, I conceived each subgroup as highly correlated with a mailing list, professional organization, or some other recruitment target.

If they are to be a recruiting and work planning tool, would it be possible to display the article status in the list of articles for the group, rather like rpl? Howard C. Berkowitz 06:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It also might be useful to display the list of subgroups from a link on the left, just as we do for workgroups. Someone else probably has to do that.
The Subgroups article seems to suggest there can be subgroups of subgroups, but doesn't explain the syntax. Here would be an example:
  • CZ Internet applications subgroup
    • CZ World Wide Web subgroup
    • CZ Electronic mail subgroup
    • CZ Distributed computing subgroup

--Howard C. Berkowitz 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have already said elsewhere: The idea of workgroups, subgroups, and potential subsubgroups should not be used as a substitute for a good subject classification (we will need one!). Unless there are at least three (better more) authors interested a "group" makes no sense. --Peter Schmitt 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting these as a substitute for classification. I'm suggesting these as preparing for an agreed-to recruiting campaign just to get such members, for which we clearly don't have enough current Citizens. For example, CZ: Internet operations is the specific goal of the North American Network Operators Group, which has a mailing list to which I subscribe and at which I've been active. If I send a mail to the list soliciting membership, including a pointer to the subgroup gives potential Citizens an idea what exists as resources, what can be improved, or, perhaps under the homepage for the group, what is needed. In like manner, I'm on a Trauma and Critical Care mailing list, which covers two subgroups. Web people tend not to be interested in email and vice versa. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Peter. Don't we have to have three interested editors before we create a subgroup? D. Matt Innis 16:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, no -- anyone can create, although endorsement requires editors. I haven't always had an endorsing editor, although I myself have the Editor status for most except medical. Nevertheless, under "be bold", what is being broken? This is additional information and doesn't delete anything in place.
Yes, if it might be also of value as an interim categorization system, how is it bad to help readers find things for which the current workgroups are at too coarse a level of granularity? Simply as an author, I find them useful to see what exists and what is needed. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You've been Nominated!

Someone has nominated you for a position in the new Citizendium. They have noticed you're dedication to the project and like what they see. To be listed on the ballot for the position, it is necessary that you accept the nomination on the [[Archive:Citizendium Ballot for the Management Council|Nomination page]. Just place accept next to your name along with the four tildes. The nomination period will close at midnight October 7 (UTC). Article 54 of the new charter details the requirements:

Article 54

  • In conjunction with the Declaration of the Editor-in-Chief regarding the effectivity of this Charter, there shall be a call for nominations for the following offices: Managament Council (five seats), Editorial Council (seven seats), Managing Editor (one), Ombudsman (one). This shall be the effective date of the Charter.
  • Any Citizen may nominate candidates for these positions.
  • Nominations shall be collected and collated by the Chief Constable.
  • Nominations shall be accepted no more than fourteen days after the effective date of the charter; the ballot shall be available starting on the twentieth day after the effective date of the charter; the election shall be completed no more than twenty-eight days after the effective date of the charter; all elected officials shall begin their term of office on the thirtieth day after the effective date of the charter.
  • Only candidates who accept their nomination shall be eligible to appear on the ballot. Nominated candidates can accept nominations for no more than two official functions. Accepting a nomination serves as a declaration of commitment, in the case of being elected, to fulfill this function until the limit of the term.
  • All positions shall be elected by a simple majority of the voting citizenry. In the case of a tie, an immediate run-off election shall be held.
  • In the event that a candidate has been elected for two functions, the candidate shall declare which one he or she accepts within three days of announcement of the election results. In the event that such a declaration has not been made during this period, the candidate shall be considered elected for the position for which the nomination was accepted first. The same procedure applies to a reserve member that becomes elected by a seat being vacated this way.

If you would like to make a statement to help voters, click the "Statement" link to the right of your name.

Thanks again for the commitment you're making to assure that Citizendium becomes the premier quality online source we all have envisioned.

D. Matt Innis 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re your Pinkwich5.js page

Chris, on your Pinkwich5.js page [2], you show: 

// install User:Pilaf/Live_Preview page preview tool
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="'
+ 'http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Pilaf/livepreview.js'
+ '&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');

May I ask what functionality that code provides you, and how does one implement that functionality?

Thanks.

BTW: I use WikEd, it works well in latest versions Firefox and Chrome, but not IE9 (beta) or Opera. Anthony.Sebastian 20:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Tony, I stole it all from someone's page, I forget who. It was so I could get preview functionality. But I don't know anything about how the code works. Sorry i can't be more helpful. Chris Day 23:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Vote!

Hi Chris! Did YOU Vote??? See the orange Sitenotice header! D. Matt Innis 23:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The page I went to was a lot of nominations but I didn't notice a place to vote. I'll look again. Chris Day 02:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
That's scary! If you couldn't find it :( You have to follow the links to the voting pages for each one. D. Matt Innis 02:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I got it now. I just didn't read it properly. I was expecting to vote on the charter but that was all long gone. I'll vote now. Chris Day 02:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, didn't think of that! I changed the banner - see how bad we need YOU! D. Matt Innis 02:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Well it would help if I had read the prolog instead of jumping right to the tables. Anyway I voted. Chris Day 02:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
There you go! Democracy in action! D. Matt Innis 02:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Perfect proof, I would say, that Democracy Is For The Birds! (hehe) Hayford Peirce 03:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Approval for Thylakoid

Chris, I prepared what Gareth calls a "short and sweet" article, Thylakoid. Will you look it over to see if you could add your name to the Approval banner? Otherwise let me know what you think it might need. Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 15:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New Biology editor

We have a new Biology editor named Dorian Q. Fuller. Perhaps you may wish to put a welcome message on his Talk page. Milton Beychok 16:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Re Thylakoid Approval

Chris, I responded to your comments on the Thylakoid Talk page, making a number of edits and adding images. If it looks okay to you, will you consider adding your name ToApprove. Thanks. —Anthony.Sebastian 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

New Biology author

User:James Parker is a new Biology author, a student at Edinburgh interested in molecular genetics. Bruce M. Tindall 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

!

Hi, Chris, thanks for dropping in again, I knew you would. I have a question for you... Ro Thorpe 19:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for the Management Council

You have been nominated for a seat on the Management Council in the July-August Special Election. The nominator was myself. To accept or decline this nomination, please visit the Nominations page by midnight UTC on July 27th. You may write an election statement for each if you wish (linked from the Nominations page).

The Management Council seat expires on either June 30th, 2014, or June 30th, 2015 (the successful candidate with fewest voting receiving the shorter term). In the event that Referendum 1 is passed, all seats will expire on June 30th, 2014. Thanks! John Stephenson 17:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Removing Talk:ArticleName/Draft

Thanks for your note. The one thing I haven't been able to do is completely remove the /Draft Talk pages for articles with status '0' while retaining the information in the Talk page banner. The {{subpages}} template has been altered so that clicking 'Talk' in the banner goes to the main article's Talk: page, but for articles with citable versions (former approved articles), this still redirects to Talk:ArticleName/Draft and not just to Talk:ArticleName, because only the former displays the definition, unused subpages, etc. I tried to fix this by altering the 'To Approve Inner' template by removing the references to 'Draft', but this results in all the information in the banner of the Talk page disappearing if the status is '0'. I tried various other edits and templates, but no joy. Can you suggest anything? Thanks. John Stephenson 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

No suggestion off the top of my head. I'll have to re-familiarize myself with the code, but I'll take a look. Chris Day 18:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2014 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline each position. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement for each position - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election

You've been nominated as a candidate for the post of Managing Editor in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Alternatively, contact me via my Talk page or privately via e-mail. Regards, John Stephenson (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris_Day&oldid=960051"