User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz

Howard C. Berkowitz

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4

Chiropractic Guidelines

I found one of the links that we were talking about,LBP guidelines. This is the newest version that basically is the evolution of the Mercy Guidelines. There are more - a couple for nonmusculoskeletal conditions that you might be interested in as well. Especially notice the last three or four pages where it talks about treatment frequencies and red flags. Depending on the doctor, he/she can run the tests to help rule in or out those conditions, or can refer them to someone else to do it. When you talk about Integrative medicine from our perspective, it basically means that there is less need for us to do it ourselves. D. Matt Innis 20:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is the current review of the literature for non-NMS conditions for chiropractic care (not just spinal manipulation) which might include other CAM techniques like massage, etc.. I doubt that acupuncture or homeopathy is considered in these though. D. Matt Innis 20:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

New User:Joel M. Kauffman

Howard, Happy New Year! You might take a look at this new user's bio. I think you might be very interested in getting to know him. Milton Beychok 05:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

copyedit on Boiling point

I made two minor style copyedits and removed the "content is from Wikipedia" notice because of Milt's notice on the talk page. You might want to check to make sure my changes are appropriate and then maybe change the version to be approved before Matt gets to it. --Joe Quick 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Too late! :-) D. Matt Innis 00:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your attention to a minor detail

Take a look here. D. Matt Innis 00:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

defunct workgroups

Your said: "several defunct food- and agriculture-related workgroups". Which do you have in mind? Chris Day 19:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, at various times I've seen Agriculture, Food Sciences, and vaguely remember something like Culinary Arts. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The first two are still there. The latter i do not remember. Chris Day 04:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One of yours?

[1] D. Matt Innis 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, mine. From the SABR baseball group that I chatted up. Hayford Peirce 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

HaHa! Of course! and an MD, too! Good job Hayford! D. Matt Innis 23:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sig

Hey, Howard, how come you don't put your sig in that edit? Hayford Peirce 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

DC boundary oddities

I'm not sure about that "boundary-goes-down-the-middle-of-the-Potomac" thing. DC government's own GIS server, as well as Google Maps and MyTopo, show the boundary as the right bank of the river; i.e., all the water belongs to DC, and Virginia ends at the water's edge. I also seem to recall seeing signs on the highway bridges that announce "Welcome to Va or DC" at the bank, not in the middle.

Also, all those maps show the Pentagon as being entirely inside Virginia.

I seem to recall that somebody made practical use of this anomaly. There is or was a restaurant in Arlington or Alexandria that built a pier out into the river so they could serve liquor during days/hours when it was illegal to do so in Virginia but legal in DC.

Sorry to be so picky. But I believe there's a place for us nit-pickin' fact checkers in CZ -- just a surely as there's a special circle of Hell reserved for us! Bruce M.Tindall 00:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, then the map is wrong. Yes, the signs are at the ends of the bridges, but the boundary is mostly down the river. I lived around there for about 40 years, did news coverage in the Pentagon and found the anomaly (part of Washington National Airport is also technically in DC, but no one lives there.

There aren't any riverfront restaurant/bars in Arlington. Yes, there are some at the end of King Street in Alexandria, but, since that end of Old Town floods easily, the restaurants, in general, moved back somewhat; too much water damage too often. There are marinas on either side of the river, and they are Virginia jurisdiction on one side and DC on the other. Both sides have separate water police. It gets confusing, because some of the water is under Federal police jurisdiction, where it abuts on National Park Service land. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a 1931 Supreme Court case and a 1945 federal statute that say the boundary is the Virginia shore of the river. Has there been any further legislation or litigation to change that to the middle of the river?

According to Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Washington Airport, Inc., 283 U.S. 348, the boundary is the "high-water mark" on the Virginia side of the river.

Then in 1945 Congress enacted PL 79-208, which can be found online where it is quoted in a Virgina legislative bill, at https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp524.exe?021+ful+HB54 . It essentially sets the high-water mark as it existed in 1945 as the boundary, and cedes any land between the 1791 high water mark and the 1945 one back to Virginia.

So, yes, as you say, stuff built out into the river after 1945 would apparently be in DC; but according to this statute the boundary would seem to be the shore, not the middle of the river. Bruce M.Tindall 20:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can only say that the local police and emergency organizations treat the border as generally in the center, except where there is reclaimed land, as in the areas of the Pentagon and National Airport. D.C. has more water police than does Virginia, but the point is that both feel the need to have it. Go ahead and edit those in if you want, but I am going to go with direct experience, including with emergency services. I can't begin to count the current number, but at one point, there were nearly 30 law enforcement organizations with authority in D.C., and some interstate as well; it became necessary to have an undercover operations coordination center after a gunfight between undercover DC cops and the FBI. The Metrorail facilities under and over the Potomac are under the jurisdiction of the Washington Metropolitan Transportation Authority police, which is joint DC-Maryland-Virginia. WMATA is a little different than the Council of Governments, another three-jurisdiction activity. Theodore Roosevelt Island is under National Park Service police jurisdiction; it's closer to DC than Virginia and has a bridge across it, but neither DC nor Virginia police act there without invitation. It's an unusual area, and a great deal of activity is controlled by regional and Federal agreements, and the state-level formalities simply don't apply in practice. After some bad experiences, there are now hot pursuit arrangements for the police on both sides of the bridge; they have agreed not to have high-speed pursuit across commuter bridges unless killers are involved -- and it has happened.

The in-town Potomac bridges are being closed for the Inauguration by Federal order, even though the states maintain the bridges. The new Wilson Bridge, between Alexandria and Maryland, is mostly funded by Virginia, but there are Maryland and federal contributions. It's just not a regular area as far as enforcement. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New user User:David E. Mann

Howard, the latest new user lists himself as a military author. I just thought that you might be interested. Milton Beychok 06:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dimitrie Paciurea

I believe you asked me to let you know when I add articles. I have added a stub on Dimitrie Paciurea. - Joseph L. Mabel 05:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm on Bucharest, also brought across Casa Capşa (historic restaurant, famous literary haunt a century or so ago). - Joseph L. Mabel 05:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please do ask me questions if anything I've written in the articles is at all unclear. - Joseph L. Mabel 05:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given I'm a devoted cook, as a few people here are, that sounds interesting! Even if you don't have a unifying article, perhaps a series of these articles might be a starting point, for someone else, on Romanian culture. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

antivrial guilt

Geez Howard, your recent work makes me feel guilty that I never got around to finishing my antiviral drug pages! Is there a drug to alleviate my symptoms? David E. Volk 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

did you see this guy?

Maybe some collaboration! D. Matt Innis 03:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval nomination of AN-

Howard, you mentioned contacting Eric Gearhart who could check the article or perhaps join me in my nomination of the article ... have you had any success with that? Milton Beychok 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Let me email him; that's usually the best way to reach him. He's not an editor, but he has abundant and recent experience with military electronics. I'll also check with Robert White. Eric has been spending most of his CZ time working on the CZ software and servers. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll like these quotes

Got this from a book review:

Goldacre's prose always reads well and pulls together his thoughts on homoeopathy, nutritionists, Brain Gym, the Aqua Detox footbath and other "bollocks du jour", the publicity for which depends largely on gullible media publishing arrant nonsense, mostly by rehashing "garbage in" press releases into "garbage out" articles; churnalism, not journalism, as Nick Davies puts it."

And the related:

The people who run the media are humanities graduates with little understanding of science, who wear their ignorance as a badge of honour. Secretly, deep down, they perhaps resent the fact that they have denied themselves access to the most significant developments in the history of Western thought from the past 200 years."

Both in an article from the Times Higher Education website. Chris Day 22:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Hello

Howard, I will of course take you up on your offer. After all that is what the collaborative effort is about!! Thank you.

I am going to spend a little time getting used to the system here and then.... the work begins Ivan Kelly 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Howard, just a reminder

Howard, just reminding you to get Eric's contribution into the AN- Talk page and decide what part or parts should be edited into the article ... before January 27th. Milton Beychok 10:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

IRA

Just so you know Howard, when we see an edit summary saying 'IRA' in Ireland, we tend to find cover! I answered on my talk page. Denis Cavanagh 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And in the US it's all about retirement. I have never got used to the American version. Chris Day 06:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah...but we Americans seek cover when we see 'IRS'. Howard C. Berkowitz 07:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

IRA Article

I put the IRA article on my watchlist and will be ready to help out when its up and going. What books will you be using for it? Denis Cavanagh 20:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember..

... to refresh the talk page before adding new material, you accidentally wiped out two of my edits. Of course you may have found them intolerable or your IP has taken over your identity. It begins. Chris Day 14:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I see you removed your own comment too? Was that your intention? Chris Day 14:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, 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. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you ever sleep?

Howard, I see you active all through our European day, do you ever sleep?--Paul Wormer 10:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleep is for the weak! Denis Cavanagh 13:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

And the non-insomniac. If you see me active in what would be the U.S. early morning, either I've been up all night, or got a very good night's sleep and woke up early. I'm in the GMT-5 time zone, actually very near the easternmost part of the U.S. There were times, incidentally, where I routinely worked with colleagues in the U.K. and Sweden, so I'd often actually work on a more European schedule, given everyone was working from home.

If I have no other commitments, you'll be less likely to see good material from me between 2100-2300 European Central Time, as that tends to be the time during the workday when I feel least energized.

There are many nuances of whether this is a good or bad thing, but I sometimes find it hard to sleep when there is unanswered Wonkology. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Approval of AN-

Howard, Eric posted that paragraph we've been waiting for on the AN-1 Talk page. Could you please work that into the article somehow? I have extended the Approval date by one day to Jan. 28 and I will change the version to be approved just as soon as you have worked his material into the article. Thanks, Milton Beychok 09:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(to be repeated on both our user pages) Milt, as soon as I have ingested a bit more coffee, I shall do so. Not complaining; it wasn't quite what I was expecting. I assumed he was going to explain a bit about it as a terminology example in the specific article context. (i.e., in "TTC-56 (V)1", the first means that it's movable from fixed site to fixed site while the second T means..."). Incorrectly anticipating, I wrote a developing article pn the AN/TTC-56, and also some of the system engineering concepts that don't have AN- designations, such as the Warfighter Information Network–Tactical, into which it fits. I'm going to use his language as more of a case study in AN-, but as a different sort of case study that also explains AN- systems can be components in systems-of-systems.

As an aside here, I'm talking about the general Engineering subspecialty of Systems Engineering, of a military flavor. That raises a question to you: to what extent do modern chemical engineers work with people called systems engineers, who look especially at the control systems, but also, say, the logistical interfaces between the fixed manufacturing plant and transportation engineering? In some respects, I think of systems engineering as something common to all engineering disciplines, but, especially in military context, it is the field of ensuring compatibility among subsystems belonging to different engineering disciplines. While, for example, a mining engineer might look at an oil well, a transportation/civil/mechanical engineer at the means of getting the crude to the refiner, and a chemical engineer at refining it, a system engineer might be looking at the handoffs and interface standards. Many large military development projects are run by systems engineering centers, either government or context. I think there's an article here and may start a stub today, along with some military aspects including "transformation", the conscious movement between generations of interconnected systems.

As yet another aside, as I get more into some of the military systems engineering, I'm going to explore something that might yet be a means of getting support for nonspecialist engineering editors. I do a number of things as what might be called an engineering journalist, so while I might be talking to the "public affairs" arm of a manufacturer or integrator, those people are accustomed to inquiries from the trade press, not general news media, and can be willing to do fact-checking. In many cases, they will do an email response, or sometimes one by phone, but, if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance they are manipulating the article, they don't want that published. Now, for what I'm going to suggest, something of an honor system is involved, which is also one of the reasons I'm hesitant to have instant editors that start ruling without much experience with the CZ process. Hypothetically, if I asked for approval on some military systems engineering, and forwarded either an email from the technical public affairs people, or wrote an email documenting the telephone call and giving point of contact, would that give you more confidence? Wearing my engineering journalist hat, I would consider it completely normal for my publishing-type editor to make random quality calls just to such a point of contact as I mention; I'm literally now hoping to start on a project where I will do a series of specialized computer articles for a broader yet specialized electronics trade magazine, and I'd certainly expect the editor might verify some of my interviews. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Howard, my career as a chemical engineer was mostly in the process design of are refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing and power plants. In those areas, systems engineers (by my definition) were non-existent. We had "instrument engineers" (or "instrumentation engineers") who were the experts in how to specify/design/purchase/maintain the plant control systems.

To my understanding, a "systems engineer" establishes work methods and work flow methods to improve worker productivity, especially in work involving repetitive manual operations (i.e., assembly line work, packaging work, bulk clerical filing, etc.). Such engineers just weren't needed in refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas processing and power plants. (Any systems engineer reading this: please excuse my definition of your work if it is incorrect or too limited.)

As for this question of yours: Hypothetically, if I asked for approval on some military systems engineering, and forwarded either an email from the technical public affairs people, or wrote an email documenting the telephone call and giving point of contact, would that give you more confidence?. Take a look at the Talk page of my Conventional coal-fired power plant article and you will note that I asked a good friend and chemical engineering colleague of mine (who had never heard of Citizendium) to review the article. He did a very thorough job and provided a good number of edits, almost all of which I accepted and implemented. I then documented his review on the article's Talk page and credited his work. Although Paul Wormer had also provided a good review, I still wanted the viewpoint of a fellow chemical engineer whose career had been in the same field as mine and that just wasn't yet to be had in Citizendium. I did not provide a point of contact on the basis that, if anyone asked for it, I would then provide it by personal email (rather than providing it publically on the Talk page).

Has this been of help? Milton Beychok 19:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Military systems engineering, however, is very much more than workflow; they deal with process compatibility and interfaces. The term is also widely used in communications engineering; one of my standard textbooks of communications systems engineering tends to focus on both capacity planning and compatibility. You now have me interested in checking engineering school criteria, on how they define systems engineering.

In the short term, at least in Engineering, I suspect we are going to have to use such external reviewers to help the active Editors in the approval process. Luckily, I know just enough about matters related to air pollution and chemical engineering to be dangerous helpful. (One must have context. My air pollution knowledge variously comes from chemical warfare, but also from growing up in northern New Jersey, where we would comment on the strange smell of pure air).

Increasingly, I tend to put communications systems in Engineering, especially things such as classic radio and telephony, but modern ones go into Computers as well. Aviation seems logical enough there; I know a good deal about electronics there, a bit about rocket propulsion, and very little serious aerodynamics.

I still want a train engineer. Choochoo! Howard C. Berkowitz 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you might find it useful to read Control system, Open loop control, Closed loop control and Control valve. They might give you more insight into what I meant when I wrote above about plant control and what instrument engineers did. Milton Beychok 08:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note my post at Talk:AN- about final approval tomorrow

Howard, just notifying you about my post at Talk:AN- regarding final approval tomorrow of AN-. Regards, Milton Beychok 05:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Value of Networks

Howard, I am critiquing the networks article. But before I post anything, I am going to learn more about the CZ structure on article writing. There is a feel, structure and culture within CZ and I want to get a better feel for it. Thanks for the head's up on the article. Good to get started. Oh I am lay on networks within the communications industry. I am looking to see how it feels for someone who wants to learn. Ivan Kelly 14:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AN-

Howard, it looks like the Approved header of AN- is messed up... "Article approved by two editors (first and [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|second]]) from at least one of the listed workgroups." doesn't look right... Eric M Gearhart

OK it looks like User:Chris Day just fixed it -Eric M Gearhart 03:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Department of Homeland Security

Howard, you created the subject article on November 9, 2008 without any subpages or Metadata template. It has sat there since without becoming a CZ article. So I just finished adding the subpages templates the Main Article and to the Talk page. I also created the Metadata template and the Definition subpage. And I also re-named it as U.S. Department of Homeland Security to be consistent with the naming of the other U.S. government cabinet-level departments.

You might want to check any other articles that you created in early November of 2008 to see if they have been made into CZ articles. Regards, Milton Beychok 09:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Milt (and Chris and Hayford and whoever else reads this), you raise an excellent point about "becoming a CZ article." I've become much more compulsive about doing subpages and such very early, but I had been operating under all of our introductory materials about "how to create an article" suggesting this wasn't really needed.

Now, I understand all the things that break when that hasn't been done, just as I see orphaning as another major problem. Just as an example of second-order effects, Larry was concerned about reaching the 10,000 article mark. On checking, though, articles without metadata aren't being counted. Once everything in "uncategorized articles" or the like is gone, we may have more articles when we think. Every day, I try to put in metadata for at least 5 of my own, and 2 others not my own, that are on that list.

Subpages aren't easy, and I certainly don't want to scare off new users. It's harder than it needs to be: why require a user explicitly to create and save a talk page, once cluster formation starts? Yes, there are times when it is appropriate to put things on the talk page, but those are the exception rather than the rule. Some simplifications will need programmer resources.

Milt is right that things aren't CZ articles without clusters, although the "lemma problem" does identify things that perhaps should not have full clusters. How do we solve this conflict? We don't have the people to go around and tidy up all the subpages. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Howard, I may be wrong, but the only way I have found to access the Metadata template of an article is from the Talk subpage ... so that is the reason for needing to create the Talk subpage. Maybe that could be done automatically by the system? Milton Beychok 17:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Two issues here. First, there is a sneaky way to reach existing data, which I just confirmed. The trick is that the metadata page (e.g., TROJAN SPIRIT/Metadata) isn't in mainspace like all the other subpages of the cluster, but in Template space: Template: TROJAN SPIRIT/Metadata.

Second, even if it were necessary to have a talk page to reach it, why not just automatically create the talk page when the metadata page is created, rather than having to save the metadata page, click on create talk page, and then save the (usually empty) resulting talk page? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, there are several categories that are unique to the talk page (all house keeping ones for starters). As to automatically creating the talk page, if only, but how? Chris Day 03:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Without knowing what is in MediaWiki and what is in template,here's an approach. I'm guessing that when one saves a mainpage with {{subpages}} set, there's some local scope variable that carries the page name — there has to be, since the metadata knows what it's being named and if there's a conflict.

At some point when metadata are saved, there's a prompt to create the talk page. My first question would be if when the mainpage were saved, both the metadata and talkpage routines were simultaneously invoked -- that assumes the language allows parallel execution. If not, one could go to a level of indirection and create a script that sequentially invokes metadata, saves, and after that, pipes an empty page to the talk page creator and saves it. I must get around to learning PHP, rather than just glancing at a manual. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

At present everything is in the template. When I wrote the templates I had assumed it was a temporary template, more a feasibility study, and from there the monster has grown. I thought that once the functionality was clear a real programmer would implement a solution involving all the things that cannot be done with a template. Primary ones being a user friendly interface for entering metadata, preferably involving drop down menus to avoid typo's and a one click option that creates the whole cluster. Chris Day 04:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point me to the template source. Here's a key question: when the user saves the metadata template, what code triggers the prompt for the talk page? Could we look at scripting that? Howard C. Berkowitz 04:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Be warned, it's messy. There is a hierarchy of templates, all originating from the {{subpages}} template, that I have tried to document on the following page: Subpages/doc. There are three different templates that can request that a talk page be created, {{Approval footer}}, {{metadata2}} and {{Article Specific}}. All three use the same simple code:

{{#ifexist:Talk:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|
|<br><br>'''Please create the "Talk page".''' Just click this 
<span class="plainlinks"> '''''[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?action=edit&preload=
Template%3ASubpages_name&title=Talk:{{BASEPAGENAMEE}} Talk page link]''''' 
</span> and save the page.<br>}}

I'm not sure how you would fire up a script from a template. Not to mention, I don't know how to write a script. Chris Day 04:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me suggest how it would work in a Unixish/Linuxish environment, which may not remotely be applicable to a URL-triggered HTML mdeo. Let's say there is a command CreateTalk. Ignoring the syntax needed to introduce BASEPAGENAME, writing

createtalk

on a command line makes it take its input from the "standard input", or keyboard.

createtalk <cannedinput

would, however, substitute the file "cannedinput" for the keyboard. Could action=edit&preload, I wonder, be at some level where one can override the input?

That still might not automate saving the page, although the creation and saving pretty well have to be primitives in MediaWiki. Howard C. Berkowitz 09:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Short articles again

Do you remember where we iscussed this for the first time, and second and third. I can't find any of them but I do have some memories of the conversations. Also, see here: User_talk:Russell_D._Jones#Vision_..._blurring_..._sight_..._fading. Chris Day 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the subject, see CZ Talk: Usability. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

blew past 9300

Someone must be adding subpages to the uncheckd list category of articles! Chris Day

Or is it the coffee? Howard, do you ever sleep? Jones

LOL! I just saw that this was covered above!! -- Jones

I frequently commit insomnia. The doctors recommend that if I can't fall asleep in 20 minutes, to get up and do something. Actually, there are patterns if you look more closely than you probably want to look.

It would be nice to be able to check the article count in real time; I'm guessing how many I'm "adding" simply through creating metadata. In other cases, especially with some of the military and medical materials, short related articles keep popping up. In particular with military hardware, it's sometimes necessary to put in more short articles so there are clearly 3 or more links to and from each article; electronics get very intertwined. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Metadata updates

Howard you asked on CZ Talk:How to edit an article if some pages need to have changes in order to update the templates. This is correct from what I have been told. Some of the templates only cycle after the page they are on changes (adding a single space is sufficient for this). Jones 23:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think i have a fix for this in the future. Variables in our clusters are all controlled from the metadata page. Therefore, all categories should live on the metadata page so everything is updated correctly with each edit to the metadata template. Unfortunately there is one thing I need to fix. Any category placed on the template page will show up in the category list as Template:Article name/Metadata. All I want to show up the Article name. See the discussion I had on Larry's talk page. Chris Day 00:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand how that affects categories. Will these changes cause the live article counts to be changed, including by changing status to less than 4? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Short articles

I noticed that Nick is writing some excellent short articles on his Great Depression/Tutorials page. I stole one for Ben Bernanke as a test for the short article concept.

I also set up the Sewall Wright article as a lemma, in this case the article is blank except for the subpages template. The definition is transcluded to the article and this means there is no red link when using the R template and also avoids the use of a redirect to the definition page. Having saif this, I wonder if the lemma template could add a redirect, I'll have to test that (excuse me thinking aloud here). I still need to work on the R template as the link is italicised (due to the lack of metadata) but I can change the rules for the R template to make it a regular blue link. See what we have below right now for the two R templates:

• Sewall Wright [r]: (1889–1988) A American geneticist known for his work on evolutionary theory and path analysis and one of the founders of theoretical population genetics. ^[e]
• Ben Bernanke [r]: (1953 - ), now Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was previously Professor of Economics and Public Affairs and Chair of the Economics Department at Princeton University from 1996 to 2002. ^[e]

Note that the {{Lemma}} template is placed by the subpages template. The rule is that no metadata exists and there is a definition page, in such a case the error templates do not kick in (the ones that normally ask for metadata). Let me know what modifications would make this more useful for you. Chris Day 07:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, a redirect cannot be placed by the template. Chris Day 08:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Woke up early and saw this; let me make some observations that may be cancelled by more sleep. First, this is very close to what I see as needed.

I think I understand what is happening in Sewall Wright, since the article and definition displays are identical. It is not clear, however, what is happening in Ben Bernanke, since while it does have "transcluded from definition", the definition and article are not identical, which to me defines the functionality' lemma/short article.

Second, looking at the syntax of the Sewall Wright page, in edit mode, if I didn't know what was being done, I would be very confused (refs: Gene Wilder in Blazing Saddles, Barack Obama at the recent Alfalfa Club dinner). If one is doing "short articles", would it be possible to have, when Sewall Wright is edited, {{lemma}} or {{shortarticle}}, which otherwise has the same semantics there as {{subpages}}?

One minor suggestion: when it is being done deliberately, it should be as transparent as possible to a reader, but not an author. A reader, therefore, doesn't need to know something was transcluded from a definition, but an author does.

If it is technically possible to do so, I would not put the "transcluded from definition" as a visible label on the page as seen by readers. I would, however, put edit-mode-commented text in the article body:

• No: Transcluded from definition
• Yes: <!-- transcluded from definition -->

Thinking a little more broadly, might this approach be relevant even where you now use blue italics in the R-template? There are, I suspect, more readers who are confused because they don't understand what blue italics mean, or even readers who do know what they mean but get no useful information from them.

This is especially true if the blue italics are coming from something quite legitimate, such as a definition on a redirect-only. As an example, the APG-70 is a real military radar and has an article with metadata. The APQ-180 is simply a repackaging of the APG-70 for a specific aircraft, and there's nothing much to say besides that, which is perfectly appropriate for redirect/definition.

• APG-70 [r]: Add brief definition or description

• APQ-180 [r]: Add brief definition or description

A number of recent comments indicate that metadata is simply not for beginners, even beginning authors. The lack of metadata shouldn't shout at people who know little or nothing about it, or are in no position to do anything about it. Putting the metadata warnings in edit mode comments might be a compromise for some of the situations. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Sewall Wright one was the lemma example. The Ben Bernanke one was a version with a little more info than one would expect in a definition. But still not really enough to warrant metadata. I'll incorporate you suggestions above and see how it looks after that. Chris Day 21:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Laughing...how often have I felt guilty on putting more than one sentence in a definition? Ahhhhh....guilt. Anyway, there's short article and lemma?Howard C. Berkowitz 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess there could be. Especially useful for the verbose ;) With regard to the transparency there is no way to show the lemma template in edit mode. Beside the whole point of the subpages template it is try and make things less confusing. The idea being one template works on all pages. The layout decisions are thus made by the template not manually. This means we reduce user error and have a predictable layout. Chris Day 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Should we assume that anyone who knows how to use metadata will not be shocked by seeing a page with nothing but {{subpages}} on it? Actually, I'm now a little confused -- where does one indicate that a piece of writing (avoiding terms) is to be treated as a lemma, not a full cluster? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You're confused? I'm just following orders! Don't panic... Don't panic...

If i recall, you didn't like the red links on the related articles page. We started by redirecting to an appropriate section in another article, however, this was not suitable for all cases. We then mused at the possibility of very short articles, like a definition, but then realised that we would effectively be duplicating the definition (and we need a definition for the R template). Obviously it makes no sense to replicate an article at the article name and the defintion. Obviously we could redirect to the definition from the article. But we can also use the subpages template to activate the lemma function on articles that have no metadata but do have a definition. But when would this kick in. Simple (but I have not finished this yet), if a term is used in the R template and there is a definition, the red link can be clicked and the subpages temaplte preloaded onto the edit page (we could also have a small explanation that is commented out. Thus any red links with a defintion can easily be made blue.

OK, that's my version, is the sort of where you were going? Clearly much tweaking is still needed. Chris Day 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Standardize lemma

When and what format are we going to go with? I wonder if we should push this through as a proposal along with disambiguation pages that also need some standardisation with regard to templates (a side conversation I have been having with Milt). In both cases, ideally we stick the {{subpages}} at the top and program our decided standard into that template such that the standard format just appears. Users don't need to remember the correct format, just stick the standard template at the top of the page. Chris Day 15:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Physical examination

Please see changes at physical examination. You have good content, but can we shorten it without loosing meaning? Feel free to edit may edits and restore what you see as essential. - Robert Badgett 14:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Malware

Hi Howard, I wanted to stop by and say thank you for not only giving the Malware article some category sprucing up (I never got that far at the other place), but also taking the time to drop a note on the talk page. To be honest, I kind of expected to come back to find the article either deleted or at least tagged for future deletion. It's so nice to see actual constructive assistance, and I wanted to express my appreciation for that. Ched Davis 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, let me know how the hand warmer training goes, maybe there's hope for a certain dog I know that thinks she belongs in her masters lap when he's trying to computer related things. ;) Ched Davis 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, OK, I have a couple questions as I get up to speed here, and please forgive the the WP lingo as I adjust.

1. Should I avoid naming specific products (like Microsoft, Malwarebytes, winfixer, etc.) when writing articles.
2. Would it be better to fully develop an individual article or two rather than create several stubs. I ask this because I see this thing about Sunday being an encouragement to add to the info here.
3. Are we allowed to write outside our professions? ... for example, even though I'm in the computer field, am I allowed to write about movies or TV shows?

By the way - that proggie for training the cat to stay off the keyboard was pretty neat .. I enjoyed that link.

Thank you for your patience and guidance, ;) Ched Davis 23:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot - should I avoid the "How To" type of information? (ex. How to remove malware) .. Thanks, Ched Davis 23:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mention products or malware when they illustrate a concept, rather than being a specific how-to on anything current. For example, I discussed smurfs under amplification attack. I might discuss Slammer as an example of a worm and countermeasures. These share the aspect of being well-patched vulnerabilities, and also relatively straightforward to explain.

As far as stub vs. full article, there's no real rule. My advice, when you are starting, is to do several small articles, so it gives you the feel of linking among them, and, when you are ready, doing Metadata, Definitions, and Related Articles.

Sure, write about anything about which you have reasonable knowledge.

Glad to help on this; I'm happy to have some collaborative work, which doesn't depend on being an Editor. Indeed, feel free to look at/edit some of my work. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Singular/plural

OK Bruce M.Tindall 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

problem article

Hi Howard, I've created a bit of a problem. After I added some to the malware article, I clicked on the link for virus (it was red) and started an article for that - the problem is - there was already an article started. The problem is/was that the link virus (computer) vs. virus (computers) - the "s" in computers. I'll stop where I am on the virus article, being new here - I'm not sure how you want to proceed. Either just delete the one I created, attempt a merge, and/or move? I don't have any experience in creating redirects either. I'll gladly defer to your choice in this - sorry for the added workload. I'll gladly attempt to do the merge if that's what is preferable.  ;)? Ched Davis 07:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Accidental release source terms need re-approval.

Howard, if memory serves me right, you were the Editor that approved Accidental release source terms. I have just revised one section considerably: to replace the list of parameters in HTML with a list in LaTeX, to add many CZ links, and to make sure that it was completely consistent with another article (Choked flow). Accidental release source terms was one of the articles I wrote early in my CZ days and it needed the updating that I just gave it.

I think that Accidental release source terms now needs re-approval. Would you please nominate it for re-approval? Thanks, Milton Beychok 20:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, but what are the mechanics? Do another nomination on the Draft? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you apply the same procedure to the Draft that you used before when you nominated the article for approval. Milton Beychok 20:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

DNS article

Per your request, I will try to review at least the base DNS article. Expect it will take me till the weekend or so.Pat Palmer 18:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Howard, I have started. I know it's going to be difficult for you to allow me to "mess with" your baby, so I bed your patience. It will take me a while to get things settled down in my mind, and I am still in the process of reading the article for the very first time. So, I guess I'm requesting you to hold back until I've made it away into the article, unless you think I'm making a dreadful mistake, in which case, of course you must argue with me :-)Pat Palmer 14:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)