CZ Talk:Core Articles/Archive 1

From Citizendium
< CZ Talk:Core Articles
Revision as of 21:49, 30 July 2008 by imported>Daniel Mietchen (→‎Suggestions for more coherent Core Article structure: new section)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Core Home
 Talk
 Natural Sciences
Social Sciences
Humanities
Arts
Applied Arts and Sciences
Recreation
Miscellaneous
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ_Talk:Core_Articles/Archive_1&printable=yes
  
colspan=20 align=left style="padding: 2px 2px 2px 2px; border-left:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-bottom:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-right:1px solid #aaaaaa;
Scores

Dive in!

Please dive in! I've put the initiative before the Editorial Council for approval "by acclamation"--I doubt anyone will have any objection. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

May I suggest that the headings should be chnaged from Column 1 to High Priority, and cols 2 and 3 should be Lower Priority? Otherwise, the meaning of these columns is not clear without reading a lot of text.--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:55, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Is THIS the meaning of columns? Well, then, I suppose my posts here should be reorganized a little... :) --Nereo Preto 09:13, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I totally missed this bit. I have to do this in two stages: a) brainstorming, b) prioritising. Since I'm doing performance arts, film and I haven't even TOUCHED hobbies yet. Oy! Feel free to jump on in here! Aleta Curry 17:19, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
LOL :-) Here is the text:

Each workgroup may award 10 points for the five most important articles in the group, 5 points for the ten next most important, and 2 points for the 14 next most important (down to #33, the bottom of the first column). The rest (in the middle and right columns) are worth a point apiece. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 09:17, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, I've done it for Economics, anyway. --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:52, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Definitely! --Larry Sanger 11:59, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

biology core articles (discussion)

Also go to the workgroup page
  1. Acid-base physiology
  2. Adaptability
  3. Adipose tissue biology
  4. Adenovirus
  5. Adrenal physiology
  6. Aging
  7. Amino acid metabolism and function
  8. Animism
  9. Ant
  10. Antigen (microstub)
  11. Apocrine gland physiology
  12. Arterial system
  13. Oswald T. Avery (DNA as the genetic material)
  14. Baboon
  15. Bear
  16. Bioterrorism
  17. Bone
  18. Comte de Buffon
  19. Butterfly

I'll have to learn the wiki coding, but here find some potential "Core" articles starting with letter "A"--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:28, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, bear in mind that on the proposal in question, there are only 200 articles in each of Biology and Health Sciences--and they have to be the 200 "core," most important, articles. I suspect there would be a lot more than 200 biology articles if you were to continue the list at that level of specialization. --Larry Sanger 20:34, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Agree re "core" concept. Thinking to make a draft list of potential core topics biology, then cull to a 200 core by consensus of Workgroup. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:22, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Exactly what I hoped you'd do. --Larry Sanger 10:00, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Anthony, don't forget we already have a list high priority articles that has been whittled down somewhat (CZ:Biology_Workgroup#High_priority_articles). Another source of our most wanted articles is on the Biology/Related Articles subpage. I suggest we put out list together on the workgroup page and gain a a consensus onm our 200 unwritten articles. I'm sure we could all come up very different lists. Chris Day (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
Good suggestion. I'll work on the Workgroup page, CZ:Biology_Workgroup#High_priority_articles, start by alphabetizing current list for ease of determining whether a considered topic exists. How does one show delete without removing item? Something like xxxxxxx? Show preview answered my question. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:52, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Architecture

Are there perhaps some more abstract (but also more familiar) concepts that would be assigned to the Architecture Workgroup? For example, skyscraper, church, building materials, etc.? --Larry Sanger 11:50, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

of course - All manner of Building types, Museum, Railway station, Airport, House, Apartment, Town Hall, School, Hotel, Office.......Building materials, we have concrete, steel, and glass, which could all probably benefit from some architectural input (although they could be considered part of structural engineering and 'construction' too) - Construction articles Construction, Construction trades, Construction methods, Structural systems, Architectural publications and awards, Stirling prize, Pritzker Prize, Architect's Journal, Learning from Las Vegas, there's then the whole area of law relating to architecture - contracts, land law, tort, planning law; then regulatory articles Building codes, Zoning - professional articles Architectural practice, RIBA, AIA - related disciplines Planning and urban design, Structural engineering, Acoustic design.........It's a vast field........I was trying to list some of the most important architects, buildings, movements and theories through the ages with a concentration on the modern - would you like me to replace some of the more obscure ones with the more 'generic' topics (or can we have 66 per column?) :-) --Russ McGinn 11:58, 25 September 2007 (CDT)
Architectural acoustics, Material science, Environmental control (architecture), Green architecture, Vernacular architecture, Architectural conservation, Brutalist architecture, Art Deco architecture, Art Nouveau architecture, Great Wall of China, Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.....--Russ McGinn 12:10, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Definitely--well, just pick the ones that, in your opinion, are most likely to be searched for. Limit it to 33 per column for now. Put the runners-up on CZ:Architecture Workgroup, how about? --Larry Sanger 12:23, 25 September 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I'll try and thrash something out at the workgroup page (although it's a bit lonely over there). Moving this discussion to talk. 33 per column for the original Polymath subject! We aim to please.......--Russ McGinn 07:53, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

reordering others' contributions

Is it bad form to move others' contributions from column one to another column? As much as I think Duck, Ant, and Eagle may eventually be worthy topics, I don't believe they qualify as the highest priority core articles in biology. Of course, I'll happily defer if other biology editors disagree... Andrew Su 11:28, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

See the workgroup discussion, I don't consider the things added here as final. Well see how they sit in the big list being developed on the workgroup page. Ant might be worth it due to the massive amount of research on their behaviour etc. I'm struggling to see duck as important. Chris Day (talk) 11:39, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
I have to agree, I started laughing when I saw Ant and Duck as the leading core articles in Biology :-)) The Eagle is political of course! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:49, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Yeah, so it looks like we have a few parallel lists going on here. So what's the plan for unifying/integrating them? Does the fact that the Biology Workgroup already has a "High priority articles" section make the list here moot? Or perhaps I should just add my contributions to the workgroup discussion? Actually, I'd hesitate to spend a lot of effort to unify/prioritize them. Just seems like a lot of empty work, since I think people will generally write about what they want to write about (though of course a long list of ideas is a good starting point)... Andrew Su 12:36, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
I more or less unified the Economics workgroup page with this one, and will try to do so with the Politics page. The guideline, as with most things in life, is to leave previous decisions unchanged unless they are crap :-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:05, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Do the columns have meaning here?

Like, is column one for items more important than those in column 3, or is this just a way of organizing the page?

If column 1 is more important, then who's the genius who decided that Frank Zappa rates higher than the Beatles??? Aleta Curry 16:02, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

See my suggestion at the top of the page:-)--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:06, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Stuff from the Great Workgroup Cleanup Crew

Somewhere--maybe over at workgroups--there is a page where people made suggestions about other needed workgroups, improvements, reorganisation etc. I'll try to find it; should be incoporated here.... Aleta Curry 16:04, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

It's at CZ:New Workgroup Requests and CZ Talk:New Workgroup Requests. Anton Sweeney 04:55, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Crossover

Okay, we knew this was coming, folks. I've got all sorts of problems with crossover topics.

  • Operetta - Theatre or music? I chose 'theatre', but...? Aleta Curry 17:08, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
  • Film - Visual arts, or media? Right now the Visual Arts list looks confused--Dali to Chaplin.

Most of my problems are going to come with respect to Hobbies. Sewing is a trade, and a hobby. Philately is a profession, stamp collecting is a hobby, but so is philately. Some philatelists are also stamp collectors. Associated football is what, the most popular hobby on God's good earth, but clearly a sport and also a profession, as is tennis, etc. etc.

I'm sure it'll get worse as I go along.

Help!!!

Aleta Curry 17:51, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Pick the strongest association.  :-) Stamp collecting is obviously of most interest to most people as a hobby. Ditto sewing.

No, see, you can't say that about sewing. You try saying that to the International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, or all those poor unfortunates in sweat shops. Aleta Curry 20:20, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Don't bother too much about this. We may jettison the "hobby" category altogether, in favor of an array of more specialized groups. Football is of course first and foremost a sport. --Larry Sanger 17:55, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

Simply, we need a Trades Workgroup. Try to otherwise categorize Landscaping.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 17:56, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Landscaping could be in architecture, agriculture (via Hortculture) and hobbies (via gardening). Chris Day (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Many article will be in more than one workgroup. If one workgroup is already full then stick it in the other. If both have room just pick the strongest link. If about equal, toss a coin. :) Chris Day (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Associated football is in Business, surely?--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:04, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
Chokes on her toast. Aleta Curry 18:14, 27 September 2007 (CDT)
We're calling it Football (soccer) but Association football is the official name. And soccer is indeed a business - in exactly the same way as basketball, American football and baseball. Just more successful ;-) Anton Sweeney 08:59, 30 September 2007 (CDT)

Well, I'm on record against film being part of visual art. It's just too huge and popular; it should be its own workgroup or we risk the rest of visual art being overwhelmed. (When I first came to this page, the only subjects listed under visual art were from film.) In any case, there's no way people/things such as Mel Blanc, Mary Pickford, and Hanna-Barbera are in the top 99 visual arts subjects OF ALL TIME! (IMHO of course.) Not to mention having both Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer AND Sam Goldwyn. We're talking thousands of years of art, folks. Eric Winesett 01:43, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

As stated above, I agree with you, Eric, but I gotta work with wot I got! Aleta Curry 18:15, 29 September 2007 (CDT)

Animal breeds

Are individual breeds of dogs and cats really core articles for the Hobbies group?! Dog- and cat-breeding, certainly, but the breeds themselves, when there are so many hobbies? Anton Sweeney 03:08, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

I wouldn't worry. I would think that, like in the other workgroups specialised subjects, in this case "core" articles for animal fancy, will get bumped in favour of articles that are core to the broader topic of hobbies. Aleta Curry 16:18, 3 October 2007 (CDT)

Earth

Earth: does it go under Earth Sciences or under Astronomy? I would say, both, and there's not a strongest association. Ah, it might be Geography, also. Please someone claim the article! I suggest the first to claim it takes it! (Earth Sciences: I call myself out of this game, but if anyone else in my workgroup could show up...) --Nereo Preto 08:15, 2 October 2007 (CDT)

Update: Earth is listed under Earth Sciences, but also under Astronomy. I suggest to do an exception here. I would Ok the article when 250 words about Earth Sciences are laid down, if some Astronomy editor would do the same for 250 words about Astronomy. We might keep the article under both lists in this way, though this is not strictly following the rules. Coordinator, give us your opinion! I am going to obey! :) --Nereo Preto 09:13, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm. Tough one. Personally, I think it applies most to astronomy. However, I like your idea of OKing for 250 words for Earth Sciences and 250 for astronomy related. If not, you could always replace Earth in Earth Sciences with global warming, since it's currently just a copy from Wikipedia. Benjamin Seghers 14:37, 20 October 2007 (CDT)
Is that true? I though most of the job on Global warming was original actually. It is categorized "developing", not "external".
About Earth, my point is, that would be the place to introduce the internal structure of the Earth (crust-mantle-nucleus), the plate tectonics and the fact that major geographical features (oceans, continents, mountain chains, volcanoes, depressions as the rift valley...) are also geological features. I couldn't think of another article people would look at to find infos about those topics, hence its high priority among Earth Sciences. --Nereo Preto 02:19, 22 October 2007 (CDT)
A few of us were trying to make a global warming article from scratch, but progress was limited and the overall quality was poor. On June 27, Dr. Arritt, a contributor from Wikipedia, replaced the page with Wikipedia's version. It has since been amended slightly mostly by Dr. Arritt and myself, but remains, for the most part, quite reminiscent of Wikipedia's article. There was a small discussion of it here.
As for the Earth article, that would be a good idea. Benjamin Seghers 19:32, 22 October 2007 (CDT)

Countries

There's a suggestion on the article page that country profiles should go under the Geograqphy heading here. And while logically yes, that makes sense - there are a lot of them! They'd quickly swamp the Geography section. I'd suggest therefore that country profiles be treated as a special case and be a group in its own right, or included as a subsection of 'Miscellaneous'? Anton Sweeney 04:21, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

the Geography section is most appropriate. The UN has about 200 possible countries, and it will be a long while at present rates before we hit 100. Geography textbooks have managed to handle the burden for many decades, of course. Richard Jensen 05:57, 4 October 2007 (CDT)

Well I suggested that they should be categorised as miscellaneous, since a country should also be in eocnomics, politics, history. A further point is that the Geography workgroup doesnt seem interested in them!! --Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:20, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Making a pledge

I know this is going out on a limb here, but is there anyone interested in making a pledge to write 2-5 articles on any of the core topics during a weeks period? It would be great if collectively we could manage say, 50 level 2 or 3 articles a week... not necessarily approved articles, but more than stubs.

Also, contributing to a level 2 or 3 article to make it a vastly improved article would be great as well.

The only caveat is, you can't copy any content from WP.

If you are interested in doing so, just add your name to the list below with a number next to your name.

I pledge to create between 2-5 CZ:CORE articles per week

  1. --Robert W King (2)

Earth Sciences top 33

I have just posted a proposal for the most important 33 missing articles in Earth Sciences, leaving a note on top that the points are not definitive. Everyone interested: check out and comment! If, by the end of this week, there are no objections, I'll drop the note and we'll assume the first column of the list is... crystallized!

We still need 4 articles to 100: any ideas?

Sciao vostro, --Nereo Preto 13:46, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

I suggest the following revision, to reflect the general importance to earth sciences of the various topics, and removing a few already-started articles. Dinosaur is made a 10-point article because that's one of the more popular things to look up in an encyclopedia:

  1. Earth (10)**
  2. Climate (10)
  3. Plate tectonics (10)
  4. Geology (10)
  5. Dinosaur (10)
  6. Earthquake (5)
  7. Plate (geology)(5)
  8. Groundwater (5)
  9. Ocean (5)
  10. Oil (geology) (5)
  11. Atmosphere (5)
  12. Age of the Earth (5)
  13. Lithosphere(5)
  14. Air(5)
  15. Mantle (geology)(5)
  16. Continent(2)
  17. Crust(2)
  18. Ice cap (2)
  19. Erosion (2)
  20. Holocene (2)
  21. Hurricane (2)
  22. Ice age (2)
  23. Hydrology(2)**
  24. Meteorology(2)
  25. Pleistocene(2)
  26. Precambrian(2)
  27. Sedimentology(2)
  28. Seismology(2)
  29. Mountain(2)
  30. Paleontology (2)
  31. Quaternary (2)
  32. Volcano (2)
  33. Weather (2)
  1. Alps
  2. Aquifer
  3. Asbestos
  4. Basalt
  5. Cainozoic
  6. Calcite
  7. Cave
  8. Climate model
  9. Cloud
  10. Crystal
  11. Current
  12. Diamond
  13. Fault (geology)
  14. Feldspar
  15. Fold (geology)
  16. Gem
  17. Geochemistry
  18. Geomagnetic reversal
  19. Granite
  20. Gulf Stream
  21. Landslide
  22. Limestone
  23. Marble
  24. Mesozoic
  25. Thermohaline circulation
  26. Carbonate platform
  27. Coal (only a redirect)
  28. Karst
  29. Natural gas
  30. Flood
  31. Ocean circulation
  32. Pollution (should be listed also under Chemistry and Environmental engineering)
  1. Ocean acidification (10)
  2. North Atlantic Oscillation (5)
  3. El Niño-Southern Oscillation (5)
  4. Mine
  5. Mineral
  6. Nucleus (geology)
  7. Olivine
  8. Ore, or Ore mining
  9. Orogeny
  10. Paleoclimatology
  11. Paleozoic
  12. Pangaea
  13. Peridotite
  14. Precipitation
  15. Quarry
  16. Quartz
  17. Radiocarbon
  18. Rain
  19. River
  20. Sea level change
  21. Soil
  22. Stone (i.e., rock as a building material)
  23. Thunderstorm
  24. Tide
  25. Tornado
  26. Tunnel (also under Civil engineering?)
  27. Water table
  28. Wind**
  29. Zircon

Anthony Argyriou 14:10, 9 October 2007 (CDT)

Ok for high priority to Dinosaur, but still Ocean acidification is a super-important issue that rivals Global warming for potential impact in our future lifes. I'd like to keep its ten points - we might size down geology to 5.
North Atlantic Oscillation and El Niño-Southern Oscillation are probably the two natural modes most influencing our climate, but they are indeed very technical arguments. OK for (2)?
And, aaah! I just realized we don't have Monsoon! Zircon may well be dropped to leave room. --Nereo Preto 01:34, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
I also note there are some changes in the (2) group, and I see why: while I gave more importance to topics related to natural disasters or economic issues, Anthony Argyriou wanted to reflect the main body of knowledge of Earth Sciences. Here's my new proposal, which is a compromise:

  1. Earth (10)**
  2. Climate (10)
  3. Ocean acidification (10)
  4. Plate tectonics (10)
  5. Dinosaur (10)
  1. Earthquake (5)
  2. Plate (geology)(5)
  3. Geology (5)
  4. Groundwater (5)
  5. Ocean (5)
  6. Oil (geology) (5)
  7. Atmosphere (5)
  8. Age of the Earth (5)
  9. Lithosphere(5)
  10. Air(5)
  1. Coal (2)
  2. Crust(2)
  3. Erosion (2)
  4. Holocene (2)
  5. Hurricane (2)
  6. Ice age (2)
  7. Hydrology(2)**
  8. Landslide (2)
  9. Mantle (geology)(2)
  10. Meteorology(2)
  11. Pleistocene(2)
  12. Sedimentology(2)
  13. Seismology(2)
  14. Mountain(2)
  15. Paleontology (2)
  16. Thermohaline circulation (2)
  17. Volcano (2)
  18. Weather (2)

Anthony, just another question: why do you suggest to drop Pollution? --Nereo Preto 02:10, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
I would keep ENSO at 10, and Dinosaur at 2. Benjamin Seghers 15:09, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
I'd also like to have NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) and ENSO (El Niño-Southern Oscillation) ranked high, but Anthony is right having Dinosaur high too. We must find room for NAO and ENSO if we want them in the list, I suggest to shift to (1) Seismology (we have Earthquake already - I know it's not the same, but the second is kind of technical) and Sedimentology (I am a sedimentologist but seriously: who is going to look for that article?). We should perhaps collect suggestions and end up with a final top 33 proposal by Monday. --Nereo Preto 02:22, 12 October 2007 (CDT)
I lowered the priority of Pollution in my proposal because it is as much an engineering topic as an earth science topic, and it's not fundamental to the science. Also, we may also want to check with Larry for more specifics about which articles are searched for before finalizing a priority list for articles. Anthony Argyriou 12:15, 12 October 2007 (CDT)
Ok for Pollution. I left a note in Larry Sanger's talk page, let's see if he can help us... --Nereo Preto 12:55, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

I don't know how much help I can be. I'm just a philosopher. I would put any of geology (unless earth sciences is already well developed?), earthquake, oil, and ocean above ocean acidification and plate tectonics. Cave, coal, pollution, and el nino seem like obvious high priorities to me, too. (Cave maybe just because I like caves!) So I'd just make matters more difficult for you. Nereo, I believe you're the only earth sci editor commenting here: so you make the final decision. Feel free to ignore me on all points but that one! --Larry Sanger 13:22, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

I would say we found our 99 - I suggest the current list is final. Changes I did are:
  • Modified the compromise version following posted suggestions of Earth Science editors or authors
  • Re-introduced all those articles that were started while the list was under formation (e.g., Fossil, Groundwater), I believe the authors of that stuff are in their right to claim those points
  • Cancelled point claims - this was just to make order, please go back claiming the points again, I'm ready to Ok those works!
At least here, we are the #1! Compliments to all Earth Scientists and the like! --Nereo Preto 12:15, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Just curious, why was ocean circulation removed? Benjamin Seghers 21:40, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
It was an error - I reintroduced it and Pollution exit, I was in fact wondering why there was still room for that article. There may be other articles that were "lost in traslation", if anyone finds something please leave a message here in the talk page. --Nereo Preto 03:40, 17 October 2007 (CDT)

Core Workgroup

Any chance we can get a CZ:Core Workgroup? --Robert W King 22:30, 10 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure I see the point. --Larry Sanger 12:44, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Marx

Nobody has claimed Karl Marx yet!!! Every student of sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, social history or western philosophy looks him up on Wikipedia at least once and probably many times. I don't care who claims the article or who writes it, but I would say it's among the social sciences' top five articles.

Hey, there's an idea - could we add a top five or top ten list for each family of disciplines (with super bonus points for creating a developed article)? --Joe Quick (Talk) 13:40, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

Philosophy will reluctantly claim Marx.  :-)

You've got a good idea there re the "super priority" topics, but we can't really identify those topics until all the lists are at Stage 5. --Larry Sanger 12:44, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Subpages

You know, I think this would be an excellent opportunity to really test the flexibility (or abuse) of the subpages template, given that the page has become very overwhelming. --Robert W King 12:04, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure how useful the subpages template would be for this. In fact, I don't think it would be at all. But I have to reluctantly agree that the page has gotten to be a bear, and it would probably be better to split it into subpages. Interested in taking that job on, Robert?  ;-) --Larry Sanger 12:44, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

I think I can just create like a /biology, /chemistry whatevers and put the appropriate things in those places. --Robert W King 12:46, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

I should point out that subpages are quite special in the sense that you cannot just create them willy nilly. The template has to know exactly which subpages are out there. I'm not sure we want to go down the path of having all these official subpages. We could however slightly tweek the subpages template and have a core article specific version. I think that would be quite easy, although I cannot say for sure. Chris Day (talk) 13:34, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

One problem right off the bat is that the namespace is not a variable used in the subpages template since it was designed to function in the main space. That makes the original immediately incompatibale with the CZ namespace. You always use regular links to the subpages. i.e. Biology Chris Day (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
You're right, I could not create them willy-nilly (despite all efforts). I'm not sure what the correct solution is. --Robert W King 15:57, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Of course, you do it by hand. CZ:Core Articles/Philosophy is the home of the philosophy articles.

What I'd like to see eventually is a greatly simplified list, all on one page, designed especially for readers. --Larry Sanger 16:00, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

Well, I mean the metadata page just simply didn't work like I tried to make it. --Robert W King 16:03, 16 October 2007 (CDT)
Maybe just a grouping of the page links, like you mentioned just above this post, and then file them all under each respective section.

OK, i just did a major reformat. Is that what you had in mind? If not YELL now. Chris Day (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

I like it! But I think the boxes should be more or less spaced evenly (if possible, perhaps create two rows). --Robert W King 18:32, 16 October 2007 (CDT)

chemistry workgroup

I am at a loss of what to do with the Chemistry workgroup core article list. It would seem I am the only active Chemistry Editor (and author to a large degree), although some others in Physics/Health Sciences write chemistry-related articles. So, the problem is how do I assign points for articles that I am likely to have to write?? David E. Volk

Give all your favourites 10 points, of course ;). But in all seriousness, this is very arbitrary and I'm sure we'll all have very different lists. I tried to go with gut feeling for the biology lists, but it clearly reflects my interests. It is inevitable that this will be true for the chemistry list too.Chris Day (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Wikipedia statistics to inform core articles?

[cross posted from Larry's talk page with the intention of kicking off a discussion]
Larry, I wonder if you'll find this interesting. I discovered a tool today that gives stats for the number of hits specific wikipedia articles get during the last two months (you can choose december or january, to date). Out of interest I then ran all of the articles currently on the CZ:Architecture core articles list. The raw results are here. Unsurprisingly, the acknowledged great buildings of the world's past scored high, as do American architects and structures, Frank Gehry gets 4 times the number of hits than Rem Koolhaas or Zaha Hadid, who are arguably more/as important today.

Our list was compiled from my viewpoint as an architect, and an attempt to give a broad overview of all the aspects of architecture and practice. Clearly the architectural practice, legal and cost control articles are low in the public's wish list. Should we amend the core article list with a more populist slant to attract 'hits' or continue on our high-brow merry way? I'm happy to reformat the list as a table with 'highest ranking first' etc if anyone's remotely interested. regards --Russ McGinn 11:18, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Core controversial articles

I have created a page for Core controversial articles (see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Core_controversial_articles for the list and for justifications).

An editor, Gareth Leng, helped in formatting it. I understand that it was worth the trouble!

I would like to add a link to this page on the list of core articles, but doing so without the ok of others goes beyond my definition of boldness.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 01:20, 6 July 2008 (CDT)

Suggestions for more coherent Core Article structure

I am pasting here some suggestions that have originally been posted on Chris Day's talk page (now archived here), in the hope to generate some discussion on this issue, especially in view of the upcoming CZ:Biology Week. -- Daniel Mietchen 22:49, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

Hi Chris, here are some more thoughts on Core Articles (I always write "should", but read this as recommendations):

  1. General:
    • CZ:Core Articles should be split into CZ:Core Article policy (for policy and guidelines) and CZ:Core Articles (for contents; that what currently is at CZ:Core Articles#Article lists)
    • Displaying the state of the current article via the pl family should be made a (default?) preference to be set by registered users, others should always see the non-pl variant. This may enhance collaboration within CZ, without hindering the user experience of those not logged in.
  2. Presentation:
    • The Article overviews should be organized as gallery grids rather than lists (e.g. like Biology/Gallery, but with two hierarchical levels):
    • Six columns (for the six supercats) and one row for each workgroup per supercat
    • One logo per grid element, representative of the workgroup, labeled with the title of the workgroup, e.g. Biology (alternatively, the title could be displayed when hovering over the image); this means that all workgroups should have a logo
    • A click on the image or label should lead to the lower-level gallery of articles within the scope of the relevant workgroup (allowing for duplications, e.g.Protein to be listed in both CZ:Core Articles/Biology and CZ:Core Articles/Chemistry).
    • Especially the core articles should be enriched with multimedia materials, e.g. animations or lectures on the subject
    • The overall design should consider the special needs of blind, colour-blind or similar groups of people
  3. Logos:
    • All CZ:Workgroups should have a logo (image or pictogram) that should be used on all articles within their scope (at least in the main namespace).
    • There should be a coherent way of transforming those logos into an even more "active" version during the relevant CZ:Workgroup Weeks.
    • {{r}} on Related Articles pages should display, in addition to what it currently does, the logo of the workgroup(s) of the linked item, excluding the current workgroup
    • Subfields within a workgroup will be hard to grasp in pictograms, so their logos should be image-only
    • On CZ:Workgroups, the icons should be rearranged such that the icon belonging to the current supercat is displayed in the first row of the table, while no icons should be displayed at the place currently filled by {{Workgroup navigation}}, but the individual workgroups listed below should be accompanied by their logo
  4. Duplications
    • Duplicate entries of core articles across fields should be encouraged (e.g. Biochemistry, Biophysics and Cell biology could all list Cytoskeleton as being within their core)
    • Articles belonging to hybrid subfields like Biochemistry or Biophysics should be listed in both parental cats, using the same logo (perhaps with some kind of colour inversion to highlight the change of perspective)
  5. Disambiguations
  6. Outlook:
    • The Core Articles structure should be adaptable for use by CZ:Eduzendium which mostly necessitates finding non-written (and thus, at least after a while) non-core articles
    • At least the two superficial layers of the presentation hierarchy (see above) should be arranged such that children can easily find their way through it.

So far. -- Daniel Mietchen 11:58, 26 May 2008 (CDT)

Template:Biology open house goes well into the direction of points 2 and 3. Thanks for that! -- Daniel Mietchen 04:47, 27 June 2008 (CDT)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ_Talk:Core_Articles/Archive_1&oldid=298216"