Talk:Financial economics/Related Articles

From Citizendium
< Talk:Financial economics
Revision as of 00:02, 23 May 2008 by imported>Chris Day
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Can some CZ expert please advise how an author should respond if alterations to his work are made without explanation. I have no experience of such treatment, and I do not want to overreact. Nick Gardner 15:48, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Are you referring to this edit? Should it not be all capitals as the current article has been named? If your worry is that the you want lower case, you can easily do the following if the original title is not correct or undesirable. I removed the colons too since they are not usually used with this template. If you don't like this kind of default setting you can change it. Here are some examples of the formating you can do: (see below)
I haven't the remotest idea what you mean. I was merely wondering what possible purpose there could be in presenting the ordinary reader with a link to some template against every definition. What is he supposed to do when he is faced with all that bureacratic form-filling stuff?. (I do not intend to take any further action myself, I merely wondered) Nick Gardner
I'm not sure I understand your question then, I thought you were referring to the most recent edit on this page? If your question is why bother having a related articles page, it is to aid navigation through the topic and act as a glossary for the terminology that is distinct to each topic. but that might not answer your point? Chris Day 16:17, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

I take your point about the function of the related articles subpage, and I have made use of them here and elsewhere to save having to define every term in the body of the main article. But I was hoping for an explanation of an alteration that presents the ordinary reader with a link to some template against every definition. My only concern is to convey the substance of the article to the reader as clearly as I can, and I am content to leave presentational niceties to the experts in such matters, but this alteration seems calculated to confuse the reader ( I ask again, what is he supposed to do when he finds that the link takes him to a request to fill up a form?)

I have finished with this article and do not propose to make any further contributions to CZ in the foreseeable future. Nick Gardner 16:47, 22 May 2008 (CDT)

Which link are you referring to? The one that says "add the definition"? Or the [r] link that will create a new related articles page for the given term if one does not already exist? The forms are meant to help create content not hinder. Do you think it would be better if it just went to a page that informs the reader that "this page does not exist yet" message? Chris Day 19:42, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
I am sorry to have raised this. I seem to recall that the [r] link had formerly been in an unobtrusive position at the end of the definition. (Or have I misremembered?) In its present position accompanied by the upward arrow, it seems to demand the reader's attention. If that is considered helpful by CZ administration, I am content to leave it at that - and not even ask about the raft of changes to definitions that are now taking place. You must be very busy, and I really shouldn't take up your time any further. Thanks for your help. Nick Gardner 00:44, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
I am trying to fix a problem that came about by having the defintions in an inconvenient place. We changed the system and now have to change the locations before we get too many and a nightmare job.
Regarding the [r] link, you remember correctly. The problem is that the code that should make it look like an unobtrusive plainlink does not function on citizendium using the defualt skin. We need a software coder to fix that its not something I have access to. If you go to "My preferences" above and select the "skins" menu you can choose monobook instead of the default skin. That will give you a completely different look and possibly one you prefer. You'll note that the little arrow does not appear in that skin.
The [r] links with the blue "r" do not have the arrow, those are the ones that link to an extant Related Articles Subpage. The arrow link is there when a page does not exist, hence, you see a form that explains how to format the new subpage when you click the link. The rationale is that we are trying to get people to create more of these pages since they will be critical for browsing through the content. The more we have the better. I'll try and think of a way to make the link less obvious. Chris Day 00:54, 23 May 2008 (CDT)