User talk:Chris Day

Notes to self

 * gives
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives

See:
 * - /Notes to self
 * - /Previous discussions

[ movelink]


 * Manual placement of 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,  ) 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 This will get around the maintenance categories often being out of date.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 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

gives: gives:
 * 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 elemental classes and the template:periodic. Did uranium, but others need fixing too. See Uranium/Elemental Class


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

Navigation Tool
Chris, the nav tool you asked about doesn't work for me either. David E. Volk 20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, and it's a great pity, as the coloured-in version looks really good. Ro Thorpe 21:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit better today: clicking on the line above the space usually gets it on the 1st or 2nd try. The look is the same as before. Ro Thorpe 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And now it works perfectly. Congratulations! Ro Thorpe 22:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the look with the black space, etc. would be very nice. Just pleased that it works at the moment... Ro Thorpe 23:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still working - but what is the change? Ro Thorpe 14:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see all that. Many thanks & congratulations. Ro Thorpe 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To the subsection, definitely. And in the case of C, there is a lot of Wikipedia stuff before it begins. Thanks for thinking of that. Ro Thorpe 18:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

- on my User page, good idea! I was thinking of making some changes there... Ro Thorpe 19:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And we're wearing dark glasses
I wish I could come up with a reason to write an article entitled "The use of unnecessary force in the apprehension of the Blues Brothers," so that you could eventually complete the line from the movie in CZ:Approval Announcements. Bruce M.Tindall 01:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Catalogs - initial indexes
Chris, I have created this list and intend to have one page for each initial, would you please format the index to work properly directing the page I created to a "B" page and create a blank "B" page also on the proper place? I'll fill it up then. I can do the rest after having the first example to follow. I might figure this out but I am sure you will have a straight better solution at first glance. I have to leave now but will be back in a few hours to go on with this. Thanks a lot, Dalton Holland Baptista 16:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I saw you working on the spelling lists. I guess you came up with exactly what we need. Yes, I was intending to make a list of botanists by surname too, this solution is great because we have everything placed together in one place. It will take a while to complete the lists though. Well, we'll get there. However, what about making tables that we can sort by date, abbreviation, country or surname, like the one of orchidologists? Do you think this is worthwhile? It is a lot of work. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For finite lists your table is excellent, definitely worthwhile. For the more massive collection of information, like all botanists, then multiple subsubpages is pretty much the only option available if we don't want to have really slow page loads. Chris Day
 * Sure, you're right, I hadn't thought of it. It seems the way we started it the best one then. I will go on it it. Dalton Holland Baptista 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Other thing: I saw you created a lemma article to Leptotes bicolor. When I was writing on WP I used to create articles of all accepted species of each genera I wrote the articles, therefore, when I wrote the article about Dracula I also wrote 140 small articles like Dracula mopsus. This is easy, I just didn't do it here because I was not sure if this is something to do in CZ or whether it is better just have full articles. They are minimal but have a taxobox, publication, synonyms, distribution and sometimes a photo. Should I go on with those here too? I fear later someone may come and say "listen, this is not an orchid encyclopedia, we already have enough, can you please write about something else?!" Dalton Holland Baptista 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The lemma article or short article is something that i have been discussing with Howard on and off for a while. I'm not sure whether we have really come to a solution in this regard. One very easy solution is to just redirect them to the definition page. Part of the issue is there can end up being a lot of red links on the related articles subpage that might never really develop into an article.  By creating the page as a lemma or a redirect we can at least get rid of the red link (it actually then shows as a black link).  See the example with the R template below:


 * But what if we want to add a picture, or a little more text? Not enough to justify it's own article but certainly more than a definition.  This is where the short article concept comes in.  Such articles would not have metadata. But then you have to ask the question, "how short is too short to have metadata?" or "why not just have good subpage content?".  So in short, I don't really have a good solution.  Although i do create them from time to time, sometimes getting your hands dirty is a better way to come up with an answer than using a more theoretical approach, if you see what i mean. Chris Day 21:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is also a matter of quantity X quality. As we have finite time we have to decide what to do first. On WP I generally made all the articles thinking that someone might just come and add a missing photo or develop the article a bit more (because it is surely easier to develop an existing article than to start creating if from the scratch, with metadata, taxoboxes, etc). On the other hand here it is completely different, people just do not come out of the blue adding stuff. You are right about the better subpages. Actually, Leptotes article has everything a small article like Dracula mopsus does (furthermore we have the galleries to add the photos). I might write a developed article on every Leptotes species but I guess other things are possibly more important now to CZ and I guess I should give them priority. Dalton Holland Baptista 21:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To develop these ideas a bit more, I think there are two options for the Dracula mopsus-like articles. And I don't think that lemma is one of them, it has too much information in my opinion.  One solution is to create a series of catalog subsubpages under the genus article for any of the interesting species (they could always be moved to their own article clusters as they develop.  The other is for them to have their own stub articles from the start.  A third option for the species with even less information is to have a table format to include many species together on one catalog page. All three of these could coexist for one genus, IMO, as long as we have a good way to navigate to all the content.  The primary issue is always being able to find the content. Chris Day 21:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking on the best way of saving time and room, possibly this third idea is good. I see something a little more complete information and with larger photos than this, what you think? Dalton Holland Baptista 21:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That link to the lizards shows exactly what i had in mind. Chris Day 22:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reftst
Hi Chris, I was playing around with Reftst again and got stuck when trying to transclude the contents of redirect pages into the edit window via the e link, as in which gives . Can you give me a hint? Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen 10:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If Reftst is not needed for that, even better! This is an important step to get the unique identifier system for references going for wiki-compatible DOIs, and I will add similar adaptations for ISBN etc. The next steps are still those described at CZ_Talk:Bibliography, and I would appreciate your thoughts (or code snippets) on this very much. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you see a possibility to make the page from which citation is called always editable this way? Specifically, if redirects are problematic, do we gain anything if we go with transclusions? For an example page that only contains transcluded references with wiki-compatible DOI, see Juggling/Bibliography. A transcluded example without a valid doi is CZ:Ref:PMID:14534258. Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say that anything that can be transcluded should have an editable link. With regard to PMID values, i made the following edit to the citation template, but I note that the template did not have a field for PMID. How do you normally add the PMID numbers, nt using the template, I presume?  Possibly we need to rethink the whole citation template for our own needs? Chris Day 17:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[undent]Forget the reply above. I just realised you are using the cite journal template in the context of the PMID number. With the following edit I allowed for a transclusion from either a DOI page or a PMID standard format page. What other permutations have you been using? Chris Day 17:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several problems and a non-problem here: The non-problem is that I used whatever the reference wikificator gave me when I first entered the reference into CZ - this happened to be cite some months ago (and possibly something else on other occasions), while it currently is citation. I think it is best to stick to one of these, and there I'd take the one which fits our needs best (I'm available to fix the other ones, once a working system is in place). To the problems: As outlined at CZ_Talk:Bibliography, not all refs do have a DOI. Further, some DOIs are not wiki-compatible. I have a workaround that still creates unique CZ:Ref:DOI pages on the basis of such DOI, such that the redirects or transclusions work in all cases. Next, Reftst was started to reduce the redundancy when citing refs the classical wiki way, using commands (as opposed to CZ:Direct referencing). Furthermore, I think it would be good to have comments, quotes, reviews, supplementary materials and similar information for any given reference available in a standard fashion. That's what I meant with the subpages approach. Archive box seems to do this for anything formatted Archive N, and I think it would be useful to have something like this for Comment N, Quote N etc. The reason why I haven't gone forward in this direction is that I think the system is not going to be adopted if the individual (so far transcluded) entries are not easily editable (i.e. without manually going to the page that the content is transcluded from). This should work in a straightforward manner, as in R, and citation seems to me the right place to implement the editability. Any constraints this may bring about will then have to be taken into account for the reference subpages. I hope this is clearer now. If not, let me know. Cheers, --Daniel Mietchen 17:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ALL of this is doable, we just have to figure out what are the naming standards so that the various subpages can always be identified by the templates. I've always liked the style of being able to comment on the significance of a paper and certainly a central location is important if we go that route.  One thing that comes to mind is that what if comments need to be distinct for a specific article, i.e. a single paper might be notable for different reasons depending on the article that is using the reference?  I think this is probably a minor issue but worth throwing out early.


 * Another issue is will the reference wikificator page keep changing? Or have the settled for the citation template as a standard? Chris Day 17:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ad 1: Naming standards would be defined relative to the most unambiguous page name at CZ (i.e. DOI or similar, with a hierarchy if such things do not exist; I basically have this structure in my head, just need the right time and place to write it down): UNAMBIGOUSPAGENAME/OPTIONS N, where OPTIONS could be any of "Quote", "Comment" etc. - to be defined similar to the "allowable subpage types" in main space. Malhi & Lagopoulos, 2008 at Neuroimaging/Bibliography gives an idea on how different quotes or comments may be handled. I do not have a precise idea how to earmark a quote for use on a specific page or set of pages, but I think this is pretty similar a task to how categories are assigned here at CZ. Alternatively, at least for edits specific to single pages, one could do it by hand, as done on the same page with the Vallender 2008 reference.
 * Ad 2: WP does not seem to have settled definitely for any of the diverse citation templates in all cases, and the ref wikificator simply reflects this situation. However, it has become less reliable in other respects recently (often co-authors are dropped), and I was thinking of starting a CZ version once the CZ:Ref formatting has a chance of wider adoption here. --Daniel Mietchen 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree its best to have a CZ version otherwise we have to keep adapting as they change their standards. As tot he subpage idea, that sounds fine. The only important thing is that it is predictable. Chris Day 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on presentation/formatting
Not that the topic isn't challenging enough, but I'm struggling to find a good way of presenting the complex interrogation rules mentioned at User: Howard_C._Berkowitz/IntUSGWB. Ever seen a classic Talmud? It has a point in the middle of a very large page, surrounded by comments, surrounded by comments on the comments...

As objectively as possible, I'm trying to correlate a stack of primary documents about authorized U.S. interrogation techniques in Guantanamo, general intelligence manuals, and Iraq. The same technique was approved and disapproved, at different times, by Rumsfeld.

Would you minimally look at the ever-growing table there and suggest any other ways to present the information? I'm walking a very careful line between original synthesis, presenting directly sourced material side-by-side with minimal commentary, and drawing conclusions on it. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So is that table complete? And no, I have not seen a talmud, but it sounds sensible. Chris Day 04:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It occurs to me that a Talmud was a 12th century attempt to be a hard copy hyperdocument.


 * The table, I think, needs about 12 more lines. To some extent, I'm being a bit Talmudic in trying to figure out if two different documents are referring to the same method, so I can combine them. Dietary manipulation vs "hot rations to MRE" is easy, but some are harder. No two authorizations have the same list; I know that prisoners not having consistent numbers seemed sinister to George Swan, but, to me, it's just bureaucratic fumbling.


 * Incidentally, in the two side-by-side columns above the main table, I'm still wondering if I'm being neutral &mdash; I'm really trying to be &mdash; but I think I've found something of a smoking gun. The Phifer language seems a more concise phrasing of the UN definition of torture &mdash; although I can think of some GWB Administration legal memos that suggest it's only torture if the fear of serious injury or death is real. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of cells
Is it ready for approval? You'd be a good person to oversee approval, I think. You didn't contribute, right? --Joe Quick 21:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Joe, I don't think it is ready. I'll start working on it though. Chris Day 03:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

subpages status image
I liked it a lot better with the dots. I think that was a lot more intuitive. The yellow boxes only really make sense when they are together in a group like on priority lists or user pages. (the other way also looked a lot nicer)--Joe Quick 17:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it back for the moment, keeping the mouseover. But I think we should devote some thoughts to why the status in the statusbar and pl is indicated with different symbols. --Daniel Mietchen 18:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the pl symbols were never really meant to be permanent. I just needed something to use to figure out the mechanics of the template as I first developed it.  It took off faster than I could think of something nicer.  We should think of something that will look good in the subpages template and on priority lists. --Joe Quick 20:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm game to change both if we can get a good design that is visually informative and aesthetically pleasing. To have a common design that works well in both locations might be a challenge? So, while we are at it, we should consider wether we want to redesign the whole subpages header to be more compatible with any new images we decide to use. Chris Day 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Water article needs an info box for its physical properties
As it stands now, the Water article does not include many of the important physical properties of water. It needs an Info box that lists at least the following data:


 * Common name: water
 * IUPAC name: oxidane
 * CAS Number: 7732-18-5
 * Molecular formula: H2O
 * Molar mass: 18.0153 g/mol
 * Density: 0.998 g/ml for liquid at 20 °C, 1 atm
 * Normal boiling point: 373.15 K (100 °C)
 * Critical point: 647 K (374 °C), 22.1 MPa
 * Melting point: 273.15 K (0 °C)
 * Specific heat capacity: 4.184 J/(g·K) for liquid at 20 °C
 * Heat of vaporization: 2257 J/g for liquid at 100 °C
 * Heat of fusion: 333.55 J/kg for solid (ice) at 0 °C
 * Viscosity: 0.001 Pa·s for liquid at 20 °C
 * Refractive index: 1.333 for liquid at 20 °C
 * Others as needed

Such an infobox, if made into a template, could also be useful for many other liquids as well. Milton Beychok 21:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Chris, see my Talk page for my response to your comment. Let's do all of our communicating on this subject there. Milton Beychok 22:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Heterotaxis
Chris, when you have time, would you please read Heterotaxis and tell me if there is anything that is not well explained or if anything else is lacking. As I wrote it at several times I fear it is more like a quilt. Feel free to correct it and change anything you think would be better placed somewhere else. Dalton Holland Baptista 11:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox code
Chris, the subtitles on taxoboxes are linked to articles therefore the subtitle Type species should be too, however, the article of type species is a redirect to Name-bearing type thus something has to be done so the taxobox title will redirect to it and appear as a blue link instead of a red one. I might do it if I knew how. Do you know how to solve this? I actually prefer the Type species title for the article but maybe do you use more the other in English, not sure. Dalton Holland Baptista 15:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Name-bearing type' is more general than 'Type species'. If i remember correctly i redirected it there to get rid of the red link. It actually needs it's own specific article. Chris Day 15:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Reports of my disappearance
Are somewhat exaggerated... but only slightly! I'm still very positive about CZ, I've just been very busy with a couple of other projects (the LISP project for the Internet, and a catalog raisonne for Yoshitoshi), and those along with stuff at home have left me no cycles for CZ. As the Yoshitoshi project gets more and more up, and as I get some stuff around here dealt with, I hope to have more time for CZ in the future. J. Noel Chiappa 16:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Segments
Chris, wherever I used the word segment on articles I meant sepals and petals. Should I go on using sepals and petals or tepals instead of segments? In Portuguese we generally use it meaning the tepals and not including the rest of structures, i.e the column. organs would mean particularly the sexual structures here. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Got it! Dalton Holland Baptista 20:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I corrected my placement of organs to be more specific. I think i caught all examples. I think sepals and petals are probably the simplest nomenclature.  Are they officially are the sepals officially called tepals in these orchids?  So far the article has consistently used sepal. Chris Day 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)