User talk:Chris Day

Notes to self
The European Physical Society


 * gives
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives

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

[ movelink]


 * How should the r template deal with links to catalogs?  Could use a separate 4th level definition but which related articles page should it link too?
 * Apostrophe bug means that the tabs are not the correct color. Fix the code to account so the if statement compares the url code.
 * 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

Too many pop-up alert messages when starting a new article
Chris, two things that have niggled me for quite some while:


 * Whenever I create a new article in my Sandbox and then use the "Start Article" link in the left-hand navigation panel:

As soon as I cut and paste the article from my sandbox into the new article (including the subpages template) and save it, three or so large popup alerts are displayed on the main article page (ahead of the article text) telling me why they have appeared and alerting me to do certain things (like filling out the Metadata template). They must be overwhelmingly confusing to a new user writing his first article. The various pop-ups are separated by a heck of a lot of white space ... so that one must scroll down quite far to even see the main article text that I just cut and pasted from my sandbox.

Can those pop-ups be made smaller, with less excessive white space between them? Or can they be combined into one pop-up and made less wordy?


 * After I've created the Definition subpage and the Talk subpage:

The Talk page has more pop-ups telling me to create the Related Articles, Bibliography and External Links subpages. Again, one must scroll down to below those pop-ups before adding a post or reading any existing posts.

Once the Main Article, Metadata template and Talk page have been created, why not autiomatically create the Definition, the Related Articles, the Bibliography and the External Links pages complete with the subpages template included in each of them? Then, instead of all those pop-ups on the Talk page, all that would be required is one sentence stating that the Definition, the Related Articles, the Bibliography and External Links subpage need to be populated as soon as possible.

I think the above suggestions would greatly simplify the task of starting a new article. What do you think? Milton Beychok 07:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The messages (including the whitespace) for starting an article could easily be changed in Template:Orphan subpage.
 * Concerning the talk page messages I have already filed a wish in CZ:Wishlist "Obtrusive requests to edit subpages". Again, they could easily be made smaller without having to create them at once. (I do not think that it is useful to create empty pages.)
 * However, both messages are as they are on purpose. Thus the pro-and-contra should be discussed, at least briefly.
 * (I agree with you, Milton) --Peter Schmitt 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad someone else said it. I thought it was just my ignorance, you know, like it wouldn't bother people born into the Internet era.
 * Not to insult the original crafters, because we've all been working in the dark on this and I still think that clusters are a brilliant idea, we just need to tweak every once in a while.
 * While we're at it, could we PLEASE remove Albert from the metadata fill in form? I keep re-creating page Albert Einstein and getting a 'you're messing this up' error message, which confuses me no end.
 * And let's remove CanE and AusE as options in the language variants. No one writes in Canadian English or Australian English, we might as well have Indian English or Trinidadian English.  We only need American English and British (or Commonwealth, if you'd rather) English.
 * Aleta Curry 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed "Albert Einstein" from the field in the blank template. (I hope that nobody minds.) On this occasion I found a Metadata template wrongly attributed to Einstein. (There may be more. And there are quite a lot of Metadata requiring "abc=Einstein, Albert" that will need to be fixed.) --Peter Schmitt 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, it should have been Werner Heisenberg. --Howard C. Berkowitz 03:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're just so certain of that, aren't you. Russell D. Jones 14:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think these alerts should go completely but we could hide most of them behind ONE generic message per page saying "Hey, something is missing or wrong. For details, click [show].". An example for such hidden stuff is at Category:Bot-created Related Articles subpages. --Daniel Mietchen 15:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I happen to like the alerts. As rarely as I create and/or move pages, I don't remember the procedures and all that has to happen; and I'm not willing to go look up those procedures every time.  But having the alerts reminds me of what I need to do to get the article "off the ground."  It's a checklist, but not in a checklist format.  I was unaware of the Einstein Bug.  I don't know that I'd like the "something's missing" format either.  It smacks of "we know something you don't, he, he."  If the templating can tell me what needs to be done to get the cluster to an operating standard, then it should. Russell D. Jones 16:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you have to place yourself in the shoes of a newbie, Russell -- all of these alerts, and *long* blank spaces down through which one has to scroll, are *baffling*. "Hey, they asked me to create an article, I did, and NOW what?!  WTF is goin' on here?  Where's my article?!  What am I supposed to do with THIS?!"  Etc. etc.  Even to me, after starting maybe 150 articles, I find it annoying.  And THEN there's the stoopid Talk page, with the big blank space in the middle with the mysterious boxes on the right telling us to start a Related Articles page and a Bibliography, and god knows what else!  It looks terrible!  Fortunately I've found an answer to this:  I click on each one of these demands, go to the newly opened page, type in an "x", save it, and do the same for the next one.  Which at least cleans up the Talk page.  Let's ask ourselves: for *whom* are we creating these minotaurian complexes?  Howard and his Lemma articles? Heisenberg and Einstein and Schrodinger and his Kat to do Thought Experiments with? or for Billy Bob Thudpucker in Las Cruces, New Mexico, who just wants to write a brief article about the third-string banjo picker of the Rolling Stones?  And while we're asking questions, I wonder how many of the dozens of new Authors who arrive here and then *never* contribute anything have actually *started* to write something, and then got scared away by all the inscrutable baloney they're then *apparently* required to do?  So they curse, or shrug, and go away, never to return.... Hayford Peirce 16:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would consider pages started empty or with an "x" as their single content as close to vandalism. The blank spaces can be removed easily, and it should also be possible to place the talk page messages more effectively. --Daniel Mietchen 16:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the blank spaces and messages can be removed or made less intrusive, then why aren't they? Who put this stuff in there in the first place? And putting an X in there isn't remotely *close* to being vandalism -- it's exactly the same thing as going into an edited page and putting in a Null so that the damn server or whatever decides to notice that a change has been made to the Metadata page, such as when we change the ABC and then it doesn't show up on the Workgroup page until the Null has been put in. Hayford Peirce 16:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent)Can a variable be set in a user profile, which is then available to templates? The default might be "newbie". Russell would want a "verbose" mode. I would want to suppress the "suggestions"--in user design speak, "terse" or "expert" mode.

In some respects, the idea of the lemma came about as a means of entering minimum useful content without going through full cluster setup, some of which will never be relevant.

Daniel, separating the issue of removing spaces, there is no real reason to demand External Links or Bibliography. Many articles will never have them, so they can go to the list of optional pages such as Catalogs and Debate Guide. Related Articles as a suggestion, yes. The suggestion of having other articles link to this article is useful only to people that understand the overall structure, who then should not need the reminder. Now, a link to a tutorial on knowledge navigation is another matter.

Hayford, your point is well taken about scaring away newbies. The newbie mode might even suppress anything beyond the minimum and post the article to a page for more experienced people to clean up. Remember the art historian? How much work would we have saved if she had just written the article and let us do the other pages? This is one of the reasons I hesitate to make instant Editors.

Eduzendium also shows that it's rather overwhelming; Daniel's macros/templates helped a lot. If I may try an analogy, we are "cataloging". When I went to work for the Library of Congress, I was amazed to discover how much skill and knowledge is needed to create a correct catalog card. There is an enormous difference between even the scholarly users of the Library, and the professional catalogers. We are simpler at present, but does the newbie even notice the "workgroup" tab on the left? At LC, the catalogers needed to go far beyond that, but both are still controlled vocabularies. I still am confused when something is "Media" vs. "Journalism". --Howard C. Berkowitz 16:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to think the templating here is exceptionally sophisticated and I appreciate that it can sculpt the CZ experience. I agree with the above that some of the mechanics are skewed (e.g., having to create a null edit in order for the server to update its status), but the "white space" experience, I think, is not intended for you to scroll through to get to the article; it is intended for you to fix the problem that is identified.  But for people who create a lot of pages, I can see that it might be tedious to go through these hoops again and again when all you do is a null edit.  Also, I see the problem of EZ.  I take about 200 students a semester through the learning process of editing on the MediaWiki software and I can tell you that for a lot of them, even learning where to click to actually open the edit window can be a challenging undertaking.  Complicating the scene with sophisticated templating raises the intimidation (or fear factor) of the site.
 * So I see three levels of users here.
 * An author new to wikis who doesn't want to or will be overwhelmed with cluster set up. (maybe in the article creation process the article could automatically be tagged (category) with a request to set up cluster; experienced hands could take care of the list.)
 * An experienced author who likes the process checklist to set up a cluster.
 * An experienced cluster setter-upper who knows what to do and can't be bothered with the alerts.
 * Also I see issues of what exactly is needed for a bare-bones cluster set up: Metadata, certainly; definitions? maybe. Bibliography? probably not.  talk page? shouldn't need a null edit.  Russell D. Jones 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I took out some of the talk page alerts &mdash; feedback welcome. Will take a look at the page creation stuff later. --Daniel Mietchen 17:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this has evolved to a discussion of the merits and dismerits:
 * I think that the information seen from the subpages template is enough: It shows what subpages exist. Those who know about them and are willing to work on them can easily start there -- if they do not want then they will ignore the templates as well. (I do ...: many pages do not need external links, and many will not get a bibliography, and why create either when one has no good idea what to enter? The same is true for definitions - better no definition than a bad or incorrect one.)
 * Moreover, CZ explicitly encourages to start articles the "easy way" (see CZ:Start Article) -- without subpages.
 * -Peter Schmitt 23:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I now also hid the alert messages for missing metadata. The following pages are some of those that do not yet have the subpages template, so you can use them to fiddle around with the new mechanism and to provide further feedback:


 * --Daniel Mietchen 13:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel i think your solution of hiding things looks great. Milt does this satisfy you? I admit the templates are a pain it is important to have some kind of visual reminder that there is an incompatibility between the metadata and the article. Hopefully they are more subtle now. Chris Day 23:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great, Daniel! Many thanks for getting rid of all of the baloney!  I just created John Dickson Carr to test your changes and everything is terrific except ONE thing: I foresee BIG problems ahead if you leave things exactly as they now are.  Once one has created the article and saved it, on top of the article one sees something like needs metadate and show.  If one clicks on the metadata link, one is directed to the page explaining metadata.  I will bet you that *some* people will try to put their metadata into the template shown on that page!  My suggestion: change the wording to what metadata means and go here to add metadata for this particular article.  Thanks! Hayford Peirce 23:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, I'll comment after I next create a new article ... which I hope will be a few days from now. Thanks, Milton Beychok 08:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ad Hayford, I changed the phrasing to avoid that kind of confusion.


 * Ad Milt, proper functioning of the templates can also be validated by putting the subpages template on any of the articles in the long list I prepared above.


 * --Daniel Mietchen 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daniel, that's a lot better! Now one last thing.  When you click on the show button and are taken to the next page, you are shown some info at the top of the page BUT there is then a LARGE blank space beneath that info, so that unless you KNOW that you should scroll down to the bottom of the page, you won't know that you SHOULD scroll down in order to click on the "fill out the metadata" link etc.  I'm sure that many people would go to this page, simply look at the top of it, wonder what the hell they were doing there, and then leave, *without* filling out any of the metadata.  Can't you get rid of this useless blank space? Hayford Peirce 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. --Daniel Mietchen 22:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Great! I'll have to create another new article (sigh) to check things out one last time.... Hayford Peirce 22:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Daniel and Chris: I just created a new article, Crude oil desalter, and I must agree that the changes made in all those pop-up alerts is a great improvement over what they were before I started this discussion. Thanks to all. Milton Beychok 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems just about perfect, Daniel, at least given all the previous template stuff that you have to work with. I just created Philip Atlee and have a one *minor* suggestion. When the main article has been created, we now have a header in black that says something like "The metadata is missing; if you feeling like doing it, please create it; details" then there's a blue link that says SHOW.  I suggest that you rewrite the longer stuff to say something like, "The metadata is missing; if you feel up to creating it, please click on the SHOW link to the right" and REMOVE the word "details" -- it's *slightly* confusing.... Hayford Peirce 23:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. I made the change. --Peter Schmitt 23:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Peter, that's perfect! Kudos to you and Daniel.  I really think that there is now going to be a lot less confusion! In fact, I'll drink to that! (Goes off to make a Scotch and soda....) Hayford Peirce 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving
Hi Chris. From what I can tell, you've been trying to clean up a few articles and put pages in their proper places recently. I noticed that this has resulted in a bibliography and external links page attached to an article about a different subject.

As I'm merely a lowly 'author', I don't think I am allowed to move pages. I thought about cutting and pasting, but then I thought it might be better if the pages were moved properly.. so I thought I'd drop you a wee note.

The article the subpages belong to is, I believe, United Empire Loyalists.

Cheers (and sorry for adding to your workload!). --Mal McKee 03:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I moved the two files. By the way: There are no "lowly" authors. You could have made the move yourself. (You are only asked to be carful, of course.) --Peter Schmitt 10:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chris, or someone else who knows what s/he's doing...
...could I prevail upon you to do the archiving thing with the January Write-a-Thon and leave me a blank page for February? Thanks! Aleta Curry 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More on metadata
I'm sorry to throw the proverbial spanner, boys, but this didn't occur to me before.

I have only just created a new article since the (excellent, I may add) changes to the setup.

Could I just ask, if it's possible, for the 'create a metadata page if you feel up to it' notice box thingy to appear *after* a body has 'saved' the new article, not before? At present it appears if you "preview". Now, if you click through to metadata creation on a "preview" page, you have to remember to 'go back and 'save' the original, or all your hard work is lost!''

I haven't (yet) tried it the other way, so I don't know what appears if you ignore the 'create metadata' bit and just click 'save' first.

Aleta Curry 01:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You write: "Could I just ask, if it's possible, for the 'create a metadata page if you feel up to it' notice box thingy to appear *after* a body has 'saved' the new article, not before?". I'm not sure I understand this exactly. How do you normally start a new article? Chris Day 04:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This problem/request was not related to the "Who's on First?" metadata problem, right? Chris Day 04:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Chris, I think I recognize Aleta's concern. Once the subpages template goes into a new article, "preview article" brings up the metadata prompts. From bitter experience, if I write a new article of any appreciable length, I make sure to save before inserting the template. It's not hard to get lost in the prompts, decide not to fill them in, but neglect to save and thus lose the work. --Howard C. Berkowitz 05:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I understand, I never use preview so I have not been down that route. All I can suggest is bold letters saying first save your work. Would that be sufficient? Chris Day 05:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just added a warning message to save. Hope it helps. However, one will never be able to prevent all mistakes. If there are too much warnings they will not be read anymore ... Probably one has to make one's mistakes, and learn from them. Preview can be usefull. I sometimes use preview, and sometimes not. Sometimes I wished I would have used it instead of showing my stupidity in the history ;-) --Peter Schmitt 10:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Howard got it in one. I'm not as brave as you are, Chris, I almost always use 'preview', I look entirely too foolish otherwise.  Trust me, no one should see my 'scrap paper'! The down side, of course, is how many times I forget to actually 'save'--sigh Aleta Curry 10:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. Chris, was the Who's on First metadata problem caused by my mistake in the status field? Let's face it:  I'm a genius! Aleta Curry 10:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a hint: If one has forgotten to save it is often still possible to go back to that edit page using the the browser's back button. --Peter Schmitt 12:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Er...yes, but when I say 'forgotten', I really mean it. Like, I've shut down the computer, turned off the generator, taken the dogs for a walk, had my hair done (okay, that's a lie), made dinner...and then I come back next day wondering where that incredibly excellent 240 page cluster that I started is! Aleta Curry 22:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Fair Use" upload summary
Chris: In the last few days, I uploaded two logos by claiming Fair Use. They were the logos for ASTM International (ASTM) and for International Organization for Standardization (ISO). When I went to CZ:UPLOAD / I am not the copyright holder / This use of the work is Fair Use, I arrived at the upload file form to be filled out. It has a one-line window in which to write the rationale for claiming Fair Use (i.e., the window labeled "Notes").

Here is what I wrote as my rationale: " The logo image is used to identify the International Organization for Standards. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. "

It was very difficult to write all of that into a one-line window and to check it for spelling, grammar and omissions. Is there any way to revise that upload file form so that the "Notes" window is at least 6-8 lines wide?

By the way, most of my above rationale was borrowed from WP ... because I could find no similar rationale help in CZ. Milton Beychok 04:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a reply ing the forum. But in case you missed that.  For me, I use the upload primarily as a decision tree to get the correct templates. I often make changes and additions to them after the upload is complete.  In this case that might be the best way to go.


 * As to the technical suggestion of adding a larger edit window. I would, if I could, but I'm not sure where to make such changes.  Or what to change.  Possibly Peter might have a better idea? Chris Day 04:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC) test

Thanks for getting the water freezing point straightened out (if it just stays that way).
Thanks, Chris. Milton Beychok 06:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

New template
Hi, Chris. Thanks for your offer of further help (not that I can find it...)

Can you make the unknown letter at Template:Common misspellings prolog show itself, please?

Ta! Ro Thorpe 17:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Where are you not seeing it? Chris Day 17:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I understand your point now. It will not show on the template itself.  But look at the page where the template is used and you will see the correct letter there. Chris Day 17:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought I was doing - but anyway, it all seems to be fine now - thanks. Ro Thorpe 18:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Pedia tricks
Thanks for following up on it! --Daniel Mietchen 17:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Categories, bots and templates
Categories can be removed fairly easily by a bot. Let me know if that would be worth it (haven't found the page you use to track these). Also, could you please take a look at Basic elemental def, perhaps in conjunction with User:Daniel Mietchen/Sandbox/Elements? I am thinking of prepopulating the empty pages via preload templates, but would appreciate some more input. --Daniel Mietchen 19:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If the bot can do that, great, although It might be tricky to program since it might not be able to predict every type of category or combination to remove? I just made an addition to your template. Check it out on an element page and see what you think. Chris Day 19:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The bot can in principle be given a list of applicable categories, or wildcards could be used in defining their names. No need to program for combinations &mdash; it will simply edit the same page again when working on the next category.
 * Thanks &mdash; the addition is valuable, but the current setting (not mine, by the way) is not compatible with r:


 * --Daniel Mietchen 20:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Now I understand. i thought you wanted to populate the element article pages but you're actually after a template to add the definition. I'll modify it as best i can, will probably have to have the definition pages  added as a parameter, i.e. , since it will not transclude properly otherwise. Chris Day 20:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tweaked it enough now that i think it will work with the r template and also with a lemma article. Chris Day 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel, are you trying to modify the template so it will work for the "Hydrogen (element)" format? I noticed that you had all those links on your page too. Chris Day 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Daniel and Chris, I hope you do not mind, but I wonder if it would not be better -- and require the same (or even less) effort -- to create the definitions with a bot (using the same logic as in the template)? Or even manually copy the definitions from Daniel's page to the definitions? --Peter Schmitt 23:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure but I was thinking that Daniel might be planning to use a substitute script along those lines? Chris Day 00:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not too eager on using a bot for just those 100 elemental definitions (too time-consuming, relatively speaking, to get it approved), so I thought I would create those pages by means of preload templates, similar to the CZ:Eduzendium course setup wizard. Ideally, there would be no piping (e.g. by integrating Basic elemental def with r.
 * I do plan, however, to set up a bot that creates lemma articles in place of empty pages for which a definition already exists.
 * On a related note, I am inclined to think that should also display Foobar/Definition if Foo redirects to Foobar and Foo/Definition does not exist. No idea how to make the template recognize a redirect page, though. --Daniel Mietchen 18:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As for Hydrogen vs. Hydrogen (element), I would prefer the latter to be applied throughout, but think that would be up to the chemists to decide. My idea was just to prepare the templates such that a coherent system can be easily achieved. --Daniel Mietchen 18:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think using (element) is not a bad idea, but I'm not a chemist.

As for using foobar definition if there is a redirect from foo->foobar, I agree that might be good but I'm not sure if it is possible to read the target if the redirect? You do know you can pipelink with the R template? With regard to populating the pages. If you want to use all the subpages with the properties for each element they will have to be moved to the new name, i.e. Boron/Atomic number to Boron (element)/Atomic number if you do not want to have a parameter in the template. This could be done easily by moving every element along with all its subpages. I'll modify the Basic elemental def template so it does not need a piped parameter. Chris Day 19:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that using single properties subpages is a disputed matter? --Peter Schmitt 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of that. So far, I am just asking questions of Daniel and tinkering with the template since I'm not 100% sure of what he is proposing. One thing I do think is important is to have a basic page for each element. Chris Day 02:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that too, and it actually inspired me to have another look at the matter, thus prompting my tinkering with these templates. The point here, however, is to have a consistent format, which can be achieved by means of a template transclude predefined content onto the definition page, and it can easily be adapted to either the current system with multiple properties subpages or the discussed alternative with one centralized metadata-like page. --Daniel Mietchen 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On pipelinking, I am well aware of that too, but many non-bot starts of Related Articles pages are made by simply dumping in a list of related topics, formatted using r, without much regard for which articles actually exist. So we often have the case described above that does not bring about a definition, even though one exists at foobar/Definition, when Foo is a redirect to Foobar. I am wondering whether this is the way it should be. --Daniel Mietchen 00:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Automated handling of content - doubts
Sorry that I am negative. But I have serious reservations against any automatic handling of content. Providing a standardized definition for the elements is rather easy (and in principle I like thinking of the logic behind such programs) but I don't think that they are really useful. Giving the atomic number in the definiton is trivial, but not very informative. Some element specific information (about its importance, or some peculiar property, etc.) is much better. Now, of course, the generated definition can alway be replaced. -- but it is much more likely that a non-existing definition is provided than that an existing one (correct though simplistic) is rewritten.

Concerning the idea to automatically convert all definitions without main page to lemma articles: I think there is a legitimate use for lemma articles (ask Howard), for definitions to redirects, but also for definitions without a page (only intended to be used in Related Articles). The difference is that -- if the page does exist -- a link to that page will look correct though it may be better to link to another page. This decision cannot be made by a bot. (For the same reason I think that one also should be careful with redirects and only use them for "correct" titles. but not to lead from incorrect titles to a correct one.)

--Peter Schmitt 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I disagree with the first paragraph, while I am not sure I understand the second. But once we have a coherent template system, I wanted to bring the matter to the forums anyway. --Daniel Mietchen 23:23, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The purpose of lemma articles is discussed in this dedicated thread at the Forums. --Daniel Mietchen 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

About National Institute of Standards and Technology and metadata templates without provisions for subgroups
Chris, the National Institute of Standards and Technology was written before there were any subgroups and the Metadata template specified only the Physics and the Chemistry workgroups. I added the Engineering workgroup.

The was no place to add a subgroup, so I added sub1, sub2 and sub3 to the template. Then I specified Chemical Engineering as sub1.

The bottom of the Main Article then listed the categories as Physics, Chemistry, Engineering and Chemical Engineering as it should. The National Institute of Standards and Technology shows up in the Physics and Chemistry and Engineering workgroups as it should do ... but I cannot get it to show up in the Engineering and Chemical Engineering subgroups despite twice making a null edit to the article's Talk page. Can you please get it to show up in the Engineering workgroup and the Chemical Engineering subgroup?

There are a good many of the older articles that have metadata templates which don't have sub1, sub2 and sub3 in them ... so perhaps they should be added somehow. Milton Beychok 17:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Milt the null edit needs to be made to the article. i just did that and it is now listed as you'd expect. Chris Day 18:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the sub1-3 field holders, yes they were a fairly recent addition so many metadata pages will not have them. Possibly Daniel could add them with a bot? Chris Day 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one false move for man ...
Chris, I think I understand that a page is placed in Category:False Start Move when the metadata template is not completed, but can you explain how United States War Department shows up in that category when that page is only a redirect? Russell D. Jones 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is normally because it was in the false move category and then the metadata gets cleaned up, thus it is out of the category.  Now the flaw in our system (auto placement of categories), the article is listed in the categories that exist when it was last edited. It should be removed from the category after a minor edit to the article. Chris Day 18:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked into this a little more closely and it is actually due to it being on the talk page (See Talk:United_States_War_Department). Citizendium differs from other wiki's in that a talk page will show up on a category without the name space being listed. BUT, sometimes you can distinguish this since it will be listed in the category under T. The reason we do this is that many of the housekeeping categories are placed on the talk page, so such categories do not have every entry starting with "Talk:". Chris Day 19:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah-ha, I've got it. Thanks for the clarification.  Any reason why I can't do a clean-up?  Russell D. Jones 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No reason, that is what you should do. The subpages template should be removed from that page as it does not work on talk pages of redirects. The talk page could be speedydeleted if it is empty too. Chris Day 20:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've discovered that some Lemma articles are showing on this list. Any advice there?  Russell D. Jones 21:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just jogged Evolution of language and it got removed from the category. I'm not sure why it was in there, looking at the history there is no clear reason. All I can imagine is that Daniel added the subpages template to start the lemma article before the he created the definition page. In that order there would be a false start category that would disappear with the creation of the definition subpage.  In such instances the article will always need to be jogged with a null edit or it will remain in the false start category, even though the category no longer appears on the page. Chris Day 21:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Correct guess on Evolution of language, Chris. I did that on purpose to test how the subpages machinery would react to this unusual order of page creation, and think we should somehow include this scenario into the phrasing of the warning messages, depending on whether a definition already exists or not. --Daniel Mietchen 22:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quirk of the functionality: If a user creates a page all in one edit with a subpages template, the page will get categorized as "False Start Move" but it will not show up on Category:False Start Move. It requires two edits to the article page before it will show on the category page. See Declaration of the United Nations. Russell D. Jones 22:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So presumably an edit only uses categories that are already on the page. I wonder if that is the case with manually added categories? By the way, these are general issues with the wiki software. I think you'll find they exist on your in-house wiki, as well as wikipedia. Obviously this is less of a problem when there are a lot of edits.  One of the advantages of having a ton of vandalism?? Chris Day 22:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I just tried creating a page and adding the category manually. In that case the edit does register correctly. So it is the auto-generated categories, only, that need the double kick. What a pain. Chris Day 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow
Noticing changes that you and Howard made to the "Criticism of US foreign policy" article -- excellent idea to make military spending as a % of GDP; you guys are pros. Impressed.