User talk:Chris Day

Notes to self

 * gives
 * gives
 * gives
 * gives

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

[ movelink]


 * 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

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)
 * Orchids have 6 tepals, three external (the sepals), and three internal (the 2 petals and the lip, which is a modified petal itself). Generally the publications treat the labellum as if it were not a petal, so when they mention petals on descriptions the lip is not included (moreover it is always described soon later). This is possibly because the repetition is extensive and frequent through all orchid texts and it would be sort of tiring to explain it over and over. Maybe it is better to avoid using tepals because it includes the labellum too, unless we intend to. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm good at finding discrepancies or something
Image:Level1.jpg says on the image description it's a draft and to not use it beyond the Anthropology workgroup - yet is all over the rest of Core Articles. Either it's not a draft, or a lot of people are using an image they're not supposed to be using. What gives? Elaine Wang 01:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on my User:Hayford Peirce page, and when I click on it I'm transferred to the Hayford Peirce article. I certainly didn't put it on my page! It's on a lot of other User pages as well -- someone must have put it there for a reason at some point.... Hayford Peirce 02:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who left that note. The original template I used in on caught on faster than I planned and I never removed the note.  Feel free to remove the notice and use it wherever you'd like. --Joe Quick 02:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a great idea, that's why. :) Chris Day 02:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The image just indicates that the Hayford Peirce article is a developed article. In fact we should be pushing it for approval we have our topic informant right here.  But I digress, you can get that status of any article using the Pl template; the template reads the status from the metadata.  For example, writing "  " will give: "", in other words, the status and a hyperlink to the relevant article. Chris Day 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I think.... I'll remove Joe's notice. Hayford Peirce 02:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the notice from *one* spot, but was unable to remove it from the Comment box just below.... Hayford Peirce 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That box below is the equivalent of the page history - you shouldn't be able to remove it even if you could. Elaine Wang 02:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: stub-starter
It's not so much that it's something I want to do, it's more that I'm not particularly good at sourcing. So I work around my weaknesses by jumping into new projects while they're still writing basic content, before they start requiring five sources per statement. (Like I say in my public notes, I was half joking - but only half.) Elaine Wang 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to recover some names?
Chris, when you recently created the Members pages for the Chemical Engineering Subgroup and the Environmental Engineering Subgroup, that effectively deleted the few user names in each of those Subgroup that were listed as Authors. Is there any way to recover those user names? Milton Beychok 07:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Milt, these ones, Category:Chemical_Engineering_Authors? Also, Category:Chemical_Engineering_Editors and Category:Environmental_Engineering_Authors and Category:Environmental_Engineering_Editors Chris Day 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of my redirect
Chris:

When I received a CZ email from Howard some days ago stating that it was time for EC members to state their positions on Resolution 0014, that email included a hyperlink to the page where members' positions were to be stated. Unfortunately, that hyperlink was truncated in the email that I received and I was led to an uncreated page where I stated my position. A few days later, when I discovered that the truncated hyperlink had misled me, I redirected that page to the correct page where I had already stated my member's position. I apologise if my redirect was not the correct thing to do, but it seemed to be the simplest way to correct the situation. Milton Beychok 18:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The redirect is good. I had the same broken link in the e-mail. Chris Day 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Templates and footers
Chris, I created 2 galleries with Bifrenaria photos and I know I messed up with the templates headers. They possibly will be used for any galleries 1 and 2 elsewhere thus I guess they should have that  thing, but I do not know how to do it, furthermore the text should be more general and not the one I placed there. I just realized after doing it, sorry. So its a mission to superman! lol. Another thing is these galleries ask for a footer template and I have no idea about what it is. Many thanks, Dalton Holland Baptista 00:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, already figured out the footers, but the headers problem remains there. Dalton Holland Baptista 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

More proposal reminders
Hello. The proposal record for "Disambiguation mechanics", for which you are listed as driver, says that the current step (to get further feedback) was due to be completed 15 March. The same goes for "Should we allow article specific subpages?". Could you please update the proposal records on CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council, changing your self-imposed deadline and perhaps the next step? If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. -- The Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen 11:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC
 * Hi Jitze, I need to work on the wording more for the disambiguation, I think there is still disagreement or confusion as to what the final strategy should be. We really need to get this to a consensus before going for a vote. The article specific subpage one is probably ready but I have not floated that in the forum again. I was thinking I should probably do them one at a time and the disambiguation might more more important right now. Chris Day 03:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Voting on Resolution 0014
Hi, Chris. I note that you have not yet voted. Now that you are heading up the EC, are you not allowed to vote? Regards, Milton Beychok 03:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of abstaining due to my close involvement in it, let alone the chair issue. Chris Day 03:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Need help with a merger
Howard Berkowitz, the original creator of and main contributor to the Alkane article, has agreed that it can be merged into the much larger and more complete Hydrocarbons article as long as a redirect is created for Alkane to Hydrocarbons. I don't know how to merge a cluster into another cluster. It seem to me that the simplest thing is to delete the Alkane article and then create an redirect from Alkane to Hydrocarbons. Or is there some other way? Can you help me with this? Thanks, Milton Beychok 07:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like merging the edit histories? Matt, might know more about that. Chris Day 14:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

punctuation marks in math
Hi Chris, mathematicians and most physicists put punctuation marks (commas and periods) in their equations, whereas chemists, chemical engineers, and (apparently) biologists do not. When I published in the J. Chem. Phys. (an APS journal) I used them and in J. Phys. Chem. (an ACS journal) I did not.--Paul Wormer 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * :) Certainly the first i have seen, so apparently biologist don't. Sorry to be presumptive and remove it, i thought it might have been overlooked. Chris Day 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

About the Water article
Chris, I need help again (so what else is new?) and I hope I'm not wearing out my welcome. Now that I've added a table of properties into the main artcle page of Water, the table in the "Properties" subpage is completely redundant ... but I cannot delete it. What I would like to do is:


 * 1) Delete that automatic table from that subpage.
 * 2) Replace it with an empty table of the same format as the one I put on the main article page. Other users can then easily add other properties into that empty table by using the subpage edit page. (Right now, there is no way to empty or add to the existing table since it doesn't appear in the edit page of the subpage).
 * 3) Change the "Properties" tab of the subpage to read "Other Properties"

If you could make #1 and #3 happen, I will take care of #2.

Thanks, Milton Beychok 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have another idea but no time to do it right now. Basically we need a home for the properties so they can be called from any page.  Possibly the metadata page or a Template:Water/Properties template.  The your template will call which ever of the properties it needs to from that remote location. For now I'll delete the properties page and you can set up the other properties page the way you would like it manually.  After I see what you want i can then think a little more about where to store these constants. Chris Day 20:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will wait. Meanwhile, take another brief look at the current Properties subpage in Water to see how I just revised it by eliminating the previous table and putting in a a blank new table. To do that, I had to remove the template. Milton Beychok 20:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! Superman looked at what I had done and made it into an "Other Properties" subpage while I was writing you about it! Thanks, Superman. Now how about getting me a Batmobile? Milton Beychok 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Is this a start on the BATmobile? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit
Great, Chris, there is no hurry. I'm pretty sure you will catch up. You,ll be able to copy edit them much faster than I can write. Now regarding the galleries, what exactly do you mean? Are you talking about that idea of having a sort of table with a photo and a short info note at its side? I just though of another possibility. This may be pretty silly but what about having just one photo of each species on the genera galleries and writing a short draft about every species (almost definition) with all the photos of that species either on the main draft page or on the gallery of each species instead (that is actually the final place they will be one day). An example of what I mean is Dracula_chimaera. The text there says (quote):


 * "Dracula chimaera is an epiphyte orchid species of caespitific growth whose genus is related to Masdevallia, part of tribe Pleurothallidinae. This species is from West Colombia where it inhabits cloud montane forests. It is a highly variable species, closely related to Dracula wallisii from which it can be differentiated by their narrower sepals and mostly by the proportions of its labellum structures. Some authors consider both as variations of the same species."

Of course this text is very good to stuff the "gallery/table" we thought, furthermore part of it might be suppressed because it is the same to all species of a genus, although this does not solve the problem of multiple photos of a species. Again I am not sure here what is the best to do. For instance, of Paphiopedilum I have photos of about 70 of the 80 species. Do we want to crowd CZ with a lot of drafts? This is something I couldn't resolve so far... I have been writing only comprehensive articles, however a life time is not long enough to write comprehensive articles of all orchid species.

For me id does not really matter if I write a comprehensive article, a level 2 one or a draft. It it is just a matter of quantity/quality. The fun is the same. If we wanted I might write many orchid genera a day like this. What do you think is better for CZ at this point? Dalton Holland Baptista 13:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the exact solution is for the gallery. My initial thinking was I need to set up the subpages template so it can support gallery sub-subpages (it does not currently support them).  As to tables or other formats, I have not thought too much about it but I like the ideas you are kicking around. Chris Day 14:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As to what is better for CZ, I think I'd rephrase it to what is more enjoyable for you. I have a long term view here.  We should do what we enjoy and in increments we will have something to be proud of. Hopefully others will see the big picture and join us. We cannot do this alone and to try is too daunting for anyone person.  Far better to beaver away in our areas of interest so we stay sane. :) Chris Day 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving needed, please
Hi Chris, are you online? Could you archive the March write a thon page for me? Thanks Aleta Curry 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Article-specific subpages
Chris, if voting still open, I vote decidedly YES. Not sure how to post vote. --Anthony.Sebastian 01:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nether this or the disambiguation proposal have been up for a vote yet. Mainly as I need to solicite more feedback before putting these through to the EC. I'll try and wrap both up when I return from a current trip.Chris Day 23:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

made some subgroups

 * CZ:Infectious Disease Subgroup
 * CZ:Microbiology Subgroup
 * CZ:Physiology Subgroup
 * CZ:Biochemistry Subgroup
 * CZ:Surgery Subgroup
 * CZ:Anatomy Subgroup
 * CZ:Cardiovascular Subgroup

However, when I tag an metadata sub1 with Anatomy (like mediastinum, it does not show up on the list of articles in that template. What step in the process am I missing? Tom Kelly 07:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's something about "tag" that I don't understand. Tom Kelly 07:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * An edit to the metadaa will change the categories but they will not register unless you make a minor edit to the page itself. Chris Day 23:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

category for member in subgroup
the cz:subgroup page says at the top to add Category:xxxx Member  to the user page while the chem engineering subgroup page says to use. Which is right? Tom Kelly 18:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Subgroups#How_to_join_a_subgroup
 * I think it is supposed to be the [ and not the { so I changed it in one location on CZ:subgroups, could you change the data for the Members section instruction? Tom Kelly 18:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Microbiology_Members
 * FIXED IT! :-) http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template%3ASubgroup&diff=100471543&oldid=100458755Tom Kelly 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Physiology is now approved by Biology and Health Sciences - how do I make the subgroup appear on the workgroup bio and health sciences page?
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Health_Sciences_Affiliated_Subgroups
 * http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Physiology_Subgroup/Affiliation

Thanks for teaching meTom Kelly 18:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I think i figured this out to - just needed to edit the home page for the subgroup once. Tom Kelly 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

adding subgroup cat to metadata template on talk page
a nice line of workgroups is viewable on the talk page in the metadata template. Can we eventually have a line below it show subgroups? I just added CV subgroup to Talk:Advanced_cardiac_life_support Tom Kelly 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

changing the color behind the definition in the metapage talk page template so that it stands out more
I was thinking a pale yellow might be nice behind the definition to really have it stand out in comparison to the blue template. I've skipped over the definition in the template numerous times because I just don't see it. What do you think? Tom Kelly 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made a test edit. This might be a little too light, i.e. high contrast with the blue background. What do you or others think? Chris Day 20:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I just changed it from the light yellow to the same colour as used by the popups menu. That contrast on my screen seems a little better.  Chris Day 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * i don't know how to test it against the blue. I can only see the yellow on the grey background. Tom Kelly 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure i understand, you should see it on all the talk pages now? Is the def not contrasted by the blue background? Chris Day 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think too much contrast. Something we can fiddle with. but definitely helps find the definition. Tom Kelly 20:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good now. Whatever the end result turns out to be, I think it will be an improvement. Tom Kelly 20:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing related articles and definitions
Hi Chris! I am impressed with your contribution to the articles. In my opinion presenting information in a clear and concise fashion is always preferable. It is great that in CZ an article is created by a number of editors. (Marika Herskovic 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC))
 * But note that I have no idea what I'm talking about, so you had better check my edits make sense. Chris Day 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I realized the problem and I made some editing. Having my background I am aware of the fact that without a reference writing is only an opinion which can be misleading. I appreciate your involvement it is constructive. (Marika Herskovic 18:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC))

Metadata/approval
Chris, half an hour ago I fiddled with the Metadata page of Specific heat ratio in order to show that I approved the current version. I saw your comment on Hayford's talk page and I hope I didn't do anything stupid.--Paul Wormer 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

mixed messages
Just making sure you wanted this one deleted. D. Matt Innis 14:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image license: CC-BY 2.5
Hi Chris, didn't know how to handle this for Image:Scholarly-journal-map-journal.pone.0004803.g005-scale-0.75.png. Please take a look. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 17:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Joe Quick might be a better person to ask. i could guess but that would presumably be no better than yourself? Chris Day 21:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll ask him. --Daniel Mietchen 13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Hidden?
Hello again, I think it would be good to hide such things away by a click and I thought hidden would do it but this is obviously empty. Do we have a CZ way to do that? Take a look at Research peer review/Bibliography‎ to see the result. Thanks, --Daniel Mietchen 17:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel, I tried made an initial stab at the hidden template. How is that as a start? Obviously it can be improved. Chris Day 21:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to work with my skin (monobook) but with the default. Anyway, a good start. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 13:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Something wonky has happened to the small Level1, Level 2, Level 3, etc. images
Chris, take a look at my user page to see what I am talking about. All of those small images are not displaying correctly at all. Milton Beychok 00:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Now they are all okay again. All is well. Milton Beychok 00:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In My Time of Dying
Chris, could you withdraw this nomination for now? I still have a lot of work to do on it. I thank you for it but a lot of the current content needs a rework/rewrite. I feel it's far from ready for anything atm :) Meg Ireland 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why Citizendium articles are ranking so low on Google? Some of the articles I originally wrote months ago ranked above 100, they now scrape near the bottom closer to 500, with Alexa. It seems to be getting worse not better with each passing month. Meg Ireland 03:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know too much about alexa so it is hard to comment on the values. What kind of people actually in the group that are tracked? As to finding the material here, my assumption is that someone would come directly to citizendium and find it that way. i doubt any people arrive from a general keyword search, especially given that wikipedia articles are almost always in the top five.  I'm not sure how to solve the problem and I can only assume that a word of mouth is the key to success. Unfortunately word of mouth is often full of misconceptions when it comes to citizendium. Do you have any ideas on how to improve the word of mouth interest? Chris Day 04:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Which makes life difficult to Citizendium because I would assume most people searching for information would more than likely go to Google first before anything else. If I had the answers btw I wouldn't be posting here :) My only conclusion would be unless Google disappears off the face of the earth (not likely) or wikipedia closes (also unlikely), it's going to be some time before Citizendium actually receives the audience it really deserves. There was a time when citizendium started that I actually thought wikipedia was doomed. Maybe if people stopped donating to wikipedia and instead donated to citizendium it may have happened but it didnt. Meg Ireland 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So Chris do you have any suggestions on what we can do in increasing Google rankings? Meg Ireland 07:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No suggestions from my side, but Alexa provides a chart of the percentage of people that arrive at a site from search engines - CZ example here. --Daniel Mietchen 08:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Preload templates for EZ
Hi Chris,

can you think of ways of putting the repetitive and error-prone (especially for newbies) creation of suitably formatted articles and metadata into some course-specific preload template? Too late for this course but I assume it won't be the last one. Thanks & Cheers, --Daniel Mietchen 08:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The best solution would be to have each students article listed in a template. For example, .  Then when the student click the read link the article would be started including the preload.  A little late for John's course now but we should do that for future courses. Good idea. Chris Day 15:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I vote for with preloads for main page, metadata, related articles and possibly the talk page and even the student that gets the assignment. Can you set up the basic structure? I'm sure at least Howard and I will chime in. --Daniel Mietchen 20:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes i can set it up. Chris Day 20:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hewlett-Packard
Just note of thanks for cleaning up my HP articles, Chris. I'm not a very active contributor to CZ right now, and this was my top priority at the moment. I logged on today to roll up my sleeves, figure out the metadata for the HP main article, and figure out where the list of HP Twitter accounts belonged. Just as I saw to be the case with Ward's original wiki community, I planted a seed and returned later to see that it had blossomed. Thank you! -- Tim Chambers 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Image needs a credit line
Chris, I just uploaded from Commons and for some unknown reason the upload wizard did not give me the option of creating a credit line ... as it always has before. The credit line should read: (CC)Photo: Stephen Codrington

What happened and how can I get the credit line to appear? Milton Beychok 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I will keep the one called "Coal strip mining". The other one, "Strip coal mining", can be deleted. The reason I ended with two of them is that I tried it twice. As for the copy and paste of the coding, I did it as I have always done it. I don't think I would have missed copying part of it twice. Thanks for your help, Milton Beychok 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strange, as I got the template header from the upload wizard when I did a dry run through of an upload from commons? So the correct template info is definitely there. Which option did you select from the upload page? Chris Day 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am quite sure that I used the Commons wizard. In fact, it even included a note emphasizing that I needed to have the original creator's name. Milton Beychok 20:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never understood
What does  do that   does not do? Milton Beychok 07:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never understood either. For the record, I always use   .  I assume it is HTML and there is probably some wikimedia equivalent. Chris Day 08:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * is XHTML, see XHTML documentation. --Paul Wormer 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

FormatDates Extension Proposal
Chris; I've added a proposal for the addition of the FormatDates MediaWiki Extension. I don't understand the proposals system at all, but I see a "driver" is needed for proposals... are you familiar with the proposals system, and would you be interested in being a driver for this proposal? Thanks, Caesar Schinas 13:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)