User talk:Drew R. Smith

Hawaiian alphabet
Drew: I use IE 6 as my browser. I know there are later versions ... but I like what I have. In any event, in the second sub-section of Hawaiian alphabet about the letter xOkina, the x does not render as anything but a small square ... which means that it is a character that my browser cannot read. Is there anything you could do about that? Does it render on other browsers? If you can't do anything about it, then so be it. I just thought you might want to know.

As for getting Hawaiian alphabet nominated for approval, I noted in your posting to Larry, that you thought it fit into 2 of our workgroups ... yet its Metadata template only has one category specified, namely Linguistics (added by Howard Berkowitz). It would be helpful if you could add a second valid category because approval nominations must be made Editors in the categories listed in the Metadata template. Adding another valid category means there might be more Editors eligible to nominate your article. (Please note that I said "valid" category.)

Just as background, when I wrote my first few articles, it was over a month before anyone even commented or suggested edits to them ... and it was even longer before someone finally nominated one for approval. So patience is required. As CZ grows, there will be more Editors available.

I hope you find this helpful, Milton Beychok 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what I can do about the character not rendering properly. As outlined in the article, it can be replaced with, or  , but for the links to work properly I have to use the real   character. Perhaps I can change the links to `Okina. Did that render properly for you? I will wait for your response before making the change.\


 * Yes, `Okina renders okay for me. Milton Beychok 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll change it in the article then.Drew R. Smith 17:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And as for the workgroups, I'm not entirely convinced it belongs in anthropology. True, anthropology has a written language section, but the majority of the workgroup is dedicated to things entirely unrelated.


 * There is no doubt in my mind that my article won't be nominated for along time, but I felt it was ready, and wanted to get the ball rolling. I didn't mean to seem impatient.Drew R. Smith 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, to answer your question about other browsers; Yes, it renders on all four browsers I use (IE 8, Google Chrome, Firefox, and Opera). On a seperate note, if you ever do decide to upgrade browsers, might I suggest Opera?Drew R. Smith 17:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I changed them all. Could you look over it for me please? It probably sticks out alot more on your browser than it does on mine...Drew R. Smith 17:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still working on it (hawaiian pronunciation). Which browser are you using... the original set-up was atrocious on mine... take careDustin Bowers 05:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually use four of the most commonly used browsers (IE8, Google Chrome, Firefox, and Opera) to make sure my edits look ok. The article was created in IE8 and looked ok in firefox and opera. I did not check google chrome. What browser are you using?Drew R. Smith 06:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats what I'm seeing in IE8...Drew R. Smith 06:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thats a little better, but now it just looks like a list. And another thing to note, it looks alright in monobook, nut in pinkwich5, the default skin, the categories appear next to the last table.Drew R. Smith 06:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using Safari. Some prose around the table would go a long way to reducing the list-itude. We could revitalize the text I deleted for that purpose. Glad we got the ball rolling. Dustin Bowers 07:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries about ball-dropping. I have been fairly inactive myself. I would be happy to help move this forward. Diphthongs are probably the next target, maybe some fleshing out as needed. Or do you think it is ready now? Dustin Bowers 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, what did you have in mind? If I remember correctly we already have a chart with the diphthongs on it.Drew R. Smith 00:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome & reply
Hi Drew, a belated welcome to CZ! I'm always really glad to see new active people. I might have answered more quickly but was travelling and offline for an unusual amount of time.

Milton answered on my behalf correctly (people think they can do that--go figure!--but they usually do so correctly so I don't actually mind). For our policy regarding approval, see CZ:Approval Process. --Larry Sanger 02:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem on the belated-ness; it happens. It's pretty cool that you're willing to stop by and welcome the new people. It shows, at the very least, that you are a better leader than most. Drew R. Smith 05:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

King K
Righto, Drew, he's on my to-do list for tomorrow - Ro Thorpe 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. By the way, I haven't heard anyone use "righto" in awhile, and it made me smile. Drew R. Smith 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories & Line of succession
Hi Drew, you are contributing here about as long as I. So I am surprised that you do not yet know that categories are used for administrative purpose only. For lists (of kings) /Catalogs subpages to appropriate articles are used. In your case, probably Hawaii/Catalogs/Kings or similar. (See CZ:Categories)

Concerning the "Line of succession" I do not know what CZ policy is. My personal opinion is, that they bloat up a minimum of information that could be given simpler and better in one sentence. Probalbly, in most cases, it need not be given at all: If the corresponding catalog is well-organized and commented an in-text link at an appropriate place (e.g., from "eleventh") would be sufficient and more appropriate.

Peter Schmitt 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea about the categories. I guess I'll go ahead and tag them with a speedydelete template. Thats a shame though, they're so much easier to use than those catalogue subpages...


 * As for the lines of succession, I have always liked having them stand apart from the text. Being able to view all the hawaiian heads of state from Pili to Governorn Linda Lingle is much simpler than having to search the text for a link that may or may not take you where you want to go. Also, the succession box isn't new, nor is it unused. All I did was change it to use the box template, and make the color customizable. If you go to succession box and check the "what links here", you can see that many articles already incorporate this.


 * I do agree that the succession box is a little bloated, and could stand to be toned down a bit. I'll take a look at it and see what I can do.Drew R. Smith 11:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess that one of the reasons might be that lists should not be merely collected automatically, but be conciously edited and organized by an author (for better value). Maybe someone can tell us more about it? As far as the succession lines/boxes are concerned, I am curious if and how others will comment them. Peter Schmitt 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see the concern with categories. At WP, I've seen articles on one subject end up in categories on a comletely different subject because one of the templates used automatically appends it. In my defense, I was editing and organizing the contents of that category consciously. But again, I can see the issues that could arise, and will stop.


 * Again, the succession boxes have been in use long before I got here. I doubt anyone will have much to say, if at all.Drew R. Smith


 * On second thought, I'll take a look at the catalog subpage, and see if I can fit the info into that. I do think the successor and predecessor need to be clearly set apart from the text.Drew R. Smith 11:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just in case you did not think of this possibility: You can copy the category lists to your sandbox or to a catalog before deleting. And as suggestion, I think, the catalog(s) would best be ordered chronologically or as table (and/or using the r template?). Concerning the succession boxes once more: it was/is just my personal opinion. Peter Schmitt 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you that they should be ordered chronologically. I was going change them as soon as I could figure out how to tweak the DEFAULTSORT: thingy to do what I want. Thanks for the suggestion about copying the lists before deleting them. That gave me the idea of using a blank category (i.e. adding a page to a category, but leaving it blank) so I can get the list without actually creating the category. Then I can just remove the category tags when I'm done with them.


 * Concerning the succession boxes once more: I halfway agree with you. ;-) Drew R. Smith 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on books...
In response to your question, I don't really collaborate on such articles. Sorry, I just don't have an opinion right now about it. Russell D. Jones 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

a question for you
First, what prompted the question: The Mauna Kea article calls the big island and the state it's in "Hawaiʻi". This strikes me as not quite right, but I wanted to ask you before I make changes. It makes sense to me that the island's named would be written using glottal stops because it is named in the Hawaiian language. I don't know about the name of the state, though, because the webpage for the state government uses a glottal stop for the County of Hawai'i but not for it's own name (scan this page, for example). Neither does the state constitution itself use glottal stops to refer to the state, although the title that appears at the top of a web browser for the online version of the constitution does use it. --Joe Quick 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This branch of the government uses both side by side! Look at the text curved around the state seal at the top of the page and then at the seal itself. --Joe Quick 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The use of glottal stops today is tricky business. The U.S. Government doesn't recognize the glottal stop as a real letter, so when you are talking about the modern "State of Hawaii" in an "official" (i.e. government) way, the glottal stop is usually omitted. The government here in Hawaii does recognize the importance of the glottal stop, so most of their websites and documents do include it.


 * On the other hand, the constitution was written between the creation of the Hawaiian alphabet and the adoption of the glottal stop, so you won't see it there either . The constitution you're linking is different than the one I was talking about. I thought you meant the original one written by native Hawaiians with the help of the missionaries.


 * For CZ use, I'd say use glottal stops for everything that needs them except when referring to Hawaii as a united state. Examples, Ancient Hawaii, Hawaii (island), State of Hawaii, Hawaiian Monarchy. I've also heard the monarchy/kingdom reffered to as the "sovereign state of Hawaii", but it's not widely used.


 * Hope this helps. Drew R. Smith 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I had already made the distinction in the article. I usually write the article first and add glottal stops afterwards. Apparently I only did the intro, and did it wrong. It's fixed now. Drew R. Smith 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a question for you. What do you think of the coordinates template at the top of the Mauna Kea article? I got the idea from WP, but ours functions quite differently than theirs, and in my opinion, better. Drew R. Smith 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The uses you suggest are exactly what my gut told me but I learned a lot about not listening to your gut from a certain leader who was in office between 2000 and 2008... Thanks for clearing that up.


 * I like the idea of the coordinates but they seem a little intrusive in that particular spot. Maybe it should go in the infobox.--Joe Quick 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I don't know if I can do that... Might be difficult, but I'll try... Can't promise anything, ok? Drew R. Smith 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * hehe. For all my sarcasm above, it actually was more difficult than I had originally thought. I had to change the article, the infobox, and the template. But I do think it looks better now. Drew R. Smith 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)