User talk:Gary Leonard Cameron

Welcome!

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started for other helpful introductory pages. It is essential for you as an editor to join the Citizendium-Editors (broadcast) mailing list in order to stay abreast of editor-related issues, as well as the mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. Aleta Curry 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hi Gary, I see you're a little concerned about creating two articles on the same subject. there are a couple of things you can do:

• You can put the Speedydelete template on it.

or

you can replace the text on one of the pages with REDIRECT (there's a button for it on the editing page).

Incidentally, you might want to hold off on doing anything until you've talked to some of the other history authors/ reviewed the other battle articles/looked at this thread [1] -Derek Hodges 22:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Derek, your reply was informative as was the tread you directed me to. I'm sure both of your solutions would work perfectly. However, I am going to defer to someone more familiar with all these things. I am utterly new at this. I'm getting used to using colons and tildes. It will take some time before I'm ready to learn what a template does and how, where, when, and why I can or should deploy one. I don't know what a REDIRECT does. I'm sure it's useful since you have suggested it as an option.

I'll be looking forward to whatever solution to the duplicate page problem the other History editors or other people who know more than I do suggest.

Please be patient as I gradually assimilate this new technology. I'm very grateful for your willingness to assist me in this way.

The link you gave me provides a great deal of food for thought. I would like an instruction as to how to fill out the metadata alphabetizing field. I'm glad there is an Editorial Council with official naming policies. If a final decision hasn't yet been reached on that matter, I'll eagerly await one.

Thank you, Gary Leonard Cameron 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(The) Battle of - you know, the one Napoleon lost

Hola

I'm a little confused. Are you saying you want the proper cluster to be at Battle of Waterloo? If so, shouldn't we make the changes there, and blank The Battle of Waterloo?

I'll go with your preference, pending an EC decision. Just let me (us) know!

Aleta Curry 01:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aleta,

I'm posting my reply on the forum so everyone who understands this from a technical side can explain the solution.

I am confused because I'm not sure how to best correct the issue.

Summary to date:

I'll paraphrase what Matt wrote to me in an e-mail. He said pick one article, make all the changes there, then the two articles can be merged. I've included Matt's e-mail to me directly below.

So even though I wasn't sure which article to pick, I picked one. I picked that one for the sole reason that "having filled out the metadata form appears to have made that article more official. I do not understand those things well at this point."

I now believe the word "The" should not be in the article title. However, "The Battle of Waterloo" article appears to my uneducated mind to be official because of the metadata form. Am I right about the metadata form being the start of making official article pages, official article discussion pages, and official article definitions? Also, what is the correct way to alphabetize "Battle of Waterloo" on the metadata page?

My other questions are: Can "The" be removed from the title? Should everything from the "The" article be cut and pasted into the "Battle of Waterloo" article? What about the metadata form? Should I fill one out for the non-"The" article? Will filling out a metadata form for the "Battle of Waterloo" article mess something up if the article is already in existence? If so then should someone who knows how first delete the "Battle of Waterloo" article as a precursor to filling out a metadata form in order to correctly bring that article into existence?

The e-mail Matt wrote to me said, "To be honest, I'm not sure which title is the preferred, so, as Derek suggested on your talk page, let's wait to see what others think the title should be. You can go ahead and continue to write on either article (but just pick one). I can make sure that the one you edited ends up with all the edits by merging the two later."

Sincerely, Gary Leonard Cameron 01:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we're on the same page now. Here's my take on things:

You're correct; it's 'Battle of', no 'The'. I checked our other 'Battle' articles Hastings, Gettysburg...etc.

We'll follow along with what you've done so far and ask a constable to swap 'em over later.

Can "The" be removed from the title? No, that cluster has to be redirected or deleted. Should everything from the "The" article be cut and pasted into the "Battle of Waterloo" article? We could, but I think a wholesale move later will be best, so do nothing if you haven't already. Should I fill out [a metadata form] for the non-"The" article? Eventually, yes. Will filling out a metadata form for the "Battle of Waterloo" article mess something up if the article is already in existence? Normally not, but whether or not a metadata form exists has ramifications for how easy it is to move things. In this case, Matt is aware of the problem and knows he will have to fix this up later, so do not lose sleep over it.

If so then should someone who knows how first delete the "Battle of Waterloo" article as a precursor to filling out a metadata form in order to correctly bring that article into existence? I know exactly what you are asking, but I don't know the answer to it. Dan Nessett or Matt Innis could give us an immediate and accurate answer.

Your understanding of our clusters (our word for the main article and all its subpages) is correct. Filling in the metadata form creates the cluster - subpages and definition, how the article is categorised and filed - in the way the author wants. We hope. I can't think of anyone who has never run into a situation where they've done something that they didn't like in metadata and had to fix it themselves later or, if complicated, ask someone else to fix it for them.

We run into these problems largely because intelligent people can usually make a case both ways. Because of this, we can change our minds, or do it differently next time just because we don't remember what choice we made before! You think you got troubles now, boy? Just wait! ;) Is it Smooth Fox Terrier or Fox Terrier, Smooth? Or fox terrier? Or Terrier, fox? Is that lovely lady Queen Elizabeth, or Queen Elizabeth II, or Elizabeth II of...England, the United Kingdom, Great Britain - well, you can just imagine. We usually get through the decisions with good-natured humour, compromise and some very bad jokes, but there have been some gosh-awful battles ('battles', ha!) too.

Have I helped at all? If not, keep asking.

Aleta Curry 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You have answered everything and more. I am so glad that others are conversant and knowledgeable about the technical aspect of this. It's a steep learning curve for me.

Thanks for your help today. Gary Leonard Cameron 04:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad. We get used to the process and forget how much there is to learn. There are some great people here (in both senses of the word) so feel free to ask away! Aleta Curry 05:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Planet#Etymology_and_history

I rewrote this some time ago. You might like to check it. Peter Jackson 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this piece out to me. I've given it a quick look see and believe you have done a good job. Thanks for making this contribution.

The text you showed me could use very minor style improvements, but it's not a problem.

I may one day add a final sentence or perhaps you'd like to write that sentence. The only idea I'd add is that the "Pluto controversy" continues in popular culture to some degree. You are correct that the professional astronomical community is not invested in further discussion on the topic of defining planets. Astronomers have 10 to the nth bigger fish to fry.

I hope this feedback feels helpful to you. I certainly don't mean to be critical. I hope we all help each other with feedback.

I'm new here and it's been a great experience. Thanks for reaching out to introduce yourself. Cheers, Gary Leonard Cameron 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Formatting refs

Hi, Gary, & welcome to CZ. At Sirius you put two references in the reference section, which is very logical - but wrong! The way to make them work is to put them between the two ref things that are currently producing all the red ink. I'd do it for you but there are three ref places in the text but only two refs down the bottom, so I don't know which apply to which. Hope this helps; if not, let me know. Regards, Ro Thorpe 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ro, I was just reading your talk archives. Thanks for explaining how to fix the problem. The other preliminary problem is citing my encyclopedia entry. Now that I've found my source I can cite the actual source instead of myself. I get it done but not immediately because I'm working on the job that pays my bills.

Thanks for your help. Regards, Gary Leonard Cameron 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)