CZ Talk:Subpages

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

Invited, Signed Articles

I presume invitations can go to CZ non-members, Albert Gore, say. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:55, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Right. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

For students

Could we provide another version of the main article targeting Middle--to--High-School, or even younger depending on article? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:58, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, we could. Good idea; it's technically feasible to start up both "expert" and "middle-school" level articles. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Earlier nominations

Nominated articles

Anybody can nominate an article here

Biology

Yea

Nay


Economics

Yea

Nay


systems biology

Yea

nay


Literature

Yea

Nay


Periodic Table of Elements

Yea

Nay

Discussion

Purpose?

I can't see how, aside from perhaps the debate and news guides and invited articles this whole subpage thing will be helpful. Is there an essential difference from including the bibliography in the article, aside from fragmenting the information? I don't particularly relish the thought of moving back and forth between subpages to read referenced material or see pictures. I'd rather just scroll through a well-organized collection of information. James A. Flippin 01:28, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

As I understand it, the references section in articles will stay; the bibliography subpage will be different, a collection of great sources for further reading on the subject. If I am mistaken, if it removes all references to a subpage, I very much agree with you. It would be needless and very frustrating fragmentation, akin to the frustration of reading a book with all its references in the back rather than at the bottom of the page...constantly, constantly, constantly having to flip between the text and the references cited.
Regarding the Gallery, I understand the same principle will operate. The gallery will be additional photos not contained in the text, a "pictorial article" of sorts, ideally. For an example, see Onslow Beach and click on the gallery link.
One issue going on right now you mgith wish to weigh in on is the placement location of the subpage links/box. See http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1059.0.html if you wish to see various examples and give your opinion on the matter.
 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:48, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
I believe the bibliography and weblinks in the subpages are meant to be annotated as well. For long lists of sources, this would make for very long articles if they were left in the main article space. --Joe Quick (Talk) 03:02, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Page headers

Can't we just include the page header in the subpages template so it is automated? This will ensure the correct headers are used in all cases. Chris Day (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I just added some code to the top of the subpages template that allows the correct header template to be identifed and placed automatically. Note now that each subpage in biology has two headers (see Biology/Links for an example Note: only links example is currently functional). One from the subpages template and one that was placed manually. This should save time and be less confusing for people who are creating new subpages (i.e. only one tempate to worry about.) Chris Day (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2007 (CDT)
Another thing to note here is that this new version of the subpages template will place the {{approved}} or {{construction}} template on an article depending on whether the approved field is used in the subpages template or not. For example, if subpages is placed on the Biology article it would be used in the following format: {{subpages|editor=editor=David Tribe|group=Biology|approved=yes}} This negates the use of the current approved template as the approved template will automatically be placed by the subpages template. Chris Day (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Categories or not?

While we are discussing headers should part of their functionality be to add different categories for the various subpages. I have created an example using the {{gallery header}}. Compare the categories for the Life/Gallery (a hypothetically approved gallery) and the unapproved Anthropology/Gallery. These categories are selected based on the fields being designated in the template placed at the head of the gallery page. For example, for Life the template is {{Gallery header|group=biology|approved=yes}} for anthropology it is {{Gallery header|group=anthropology}}. If we have the auto generated headers (see discussion above) as part of the subpages template then it would be as follows: {{subpages|group=biology|approved=yes}} or {{subpages|group=anthropology}} Chris Day (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

It sure would make them easily browsable.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:56, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this is an obvious must if you think about it. Let's settle upon some good naming conventions for these, however. [[Category:<workgroup> <plural form of subpage name>]], probably: Category:Anthropology Galleries; Category:Philosophy Links.

I'll tell you, once we get this set up, establishing a new workgroup is going to be so complicated and so much gruntwork, nobody's going to want to do it. It might be nice to have a script-bot that takes a single workgroup name and then just spits out all the necessary apparatus. --Larry Sanger 09:25, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Given that, we might want to be forward looking and take the big grunt now of creating any new ones needed for years out.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:50, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Gallery

We need to decide whether this will be a Media Gallery, inclusive of images, audio, and video; or, a Gallery for images, and a separate subpage called, say, Audio/Video.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:41, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to separate these, simply because people don't often look for all these different media at the same time, I imagine. --Larry Sanger 09:21, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

People

The present Subpages constellation may be a bit too logocentric in traditional scholarly ways.

Everything proposed seems to have an important place, but the actual, living (or once-living) people associated with entries seem to occupy a secondary place. I am referring to biographical information, of course, but not merely in a historical sense. (1) It would seem useful to organize in some place other than a search result page (or dedicated page for the few best known authors) all of the works by a single author. (And, of course, to also link these with the appropriate sites as mentioned in the Bibliography policy.) It should eventually be possible for a set of subpages to capture something like the Get Cited site. (2) Also, with all the truly amazing work in recent decades on social networking, better capturing some of what most people now recognize as the Six Degrees phenomenon.

People mentioned in Citizendium articles are not just authors with bibliographies and celebrities with their own entries, but also "stars" (in the social networking sense) in their own social networks. Wikiing makes this all quite feasible, but subpages could also make such people-references into additional special features of the site.

Roger Lohmann 09:07, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure I understand, but we will have "Works" subpages, on the current proposal. Will that encourage the feature you're describing? I probably just don't understand... --Larry Sanger 09:20, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Sub-subpages or not?

I have been thinking about this recently. There is one advantage to having signed articles, and similar, on sub-subpages. It means that a specific header title can be placed automatically at the top of the page (see examples of signed articles, timelines and tables sub-subpages in the Test article cluster.

However, using sub-subpages means it is not possible to have the metadata stored on a subpage (such as ARTICLENAME/Metadata). Instead, it must be stored in a template (Template:ARTICLENAME/Metadata).

So which do we deem more important? Having Metadata on a subpage rather than a template or having customised headers> At present I can't figure a way wee can do both (although that does not mean it is not possible). Chris Day (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Student

It is not clearly evident that a Student subpage will be a lower level article. How about just being a bit more explicit about it: Student level.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:12, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me add here that this subpage aspect is truly exciting...to me, a person who specializes in "translating" advanced topics into lower literacy levels. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Big New Workgroups Resolution

This should happen before any Big Subpagination Project.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:04, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Why? --Larry Sanger 20:44, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Chris needs to chime in. I recall him saying somewhere that this was important. I posted what I did above to make sure it was brought up and addressed, if it really needs to be.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:53, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
I'm not sure what this is about? I don't recall discussing this before. Chris Day (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
So much has happened, you know, I don't blame you. :-) --Larry Sanger 17:38, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
How many neurons do we lose each day? i must have lost the ones that stored this info. So where is the Workgroups resolution? I expect I have it as a different name in my head. Chris Day (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2007 (CDT)
Anything to do with this (CZ_Talk:New_Workgroup_Requests), and Stephen, why is this related to the subpagination project? Chris Day (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Step 4

I could run a bot to do step 4 in what's called The Big Subpagination. I'm running a bot on Wikipedia (pywikipedia-based), so I'm confident that I could manage the technical part. One potential problem is that I'll be away in October and part of November. Step 5b has to be done first, which might mean that the bot cannot be employed before October. On the other hand, perhaps it's enough for step 5b to just go through the list of titles, which can be done fairly quickly. Anyway, I wouldn't mind at all if somebody else would run the bot; there are enough articles to be written and improved to keep me busy for all my life.

As it stands, there are a couple of points that need to be clarified:

  • What does "all articles" refer to? All pages in main space that are not a subpage or a redirect? Related question: What to do about pages like 40mm/56 caliber gun, which are not supposed to be subpages but are currently treated as such?
  • Move articles to draft space? (We can always postpone this decision and do another bot run if necessary)
  • What subsections should be moved to subpages? The section "See also" should be moved to the subpage "Related Articles" and the section "External links" to the subpage "External Links". Any more? There are (at least) three section titles that correspond to the subpage "Bibliography", namely "References", "Further reading" and of course "Bibliography". What do we do if more than one is present in the article (if this is rare then it's probably best only to list those articles and let humans handle it)? An added complication is that many articles contain the <references/> tag in the "References" section; that tag should not be moved to the "Bibliography" subpage.
  • If an article has the Wikipedia flag, then all subpages created from it should also carry this flag?
  • "If an article has categories but no checklist, populate the checklist categories with the article categories" — does this refer to workgroup categories like Category:Health Sciences Workgroup or are there other categories to take into account? Similarly, should we remove all categories from articles or only workgroup categories?

-- Jitse Niesen 07:34, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

The current navigation bar

With all respect, it looks hideous (dull background color and thick borders that don't match, too small font). I also have no idea what "PUMA?" is supposed to mean. Fredrik Johansson 11:11, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I designed it for function rather than style. i am happy to modify it. Or if you want to tinker with changes that is good too.
Not sure what you mean by "thick borders that don't match"? Bear two things in mind. There are browser issues, so how it looks may vary depending on the broswer you use. Second, i have always assumed that the look will be superceded by CSS skins such that the subpage templates main function will be to place approval related templates and categories on the various subpages.
For more discussion on this topic and some screen shots look at CZ:Weekly_Wiki/August_22,_2007#Subpage_Style_Voting. Chris Day (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2007 (CDT)

Useful utility

...to put on this page: a jumping-off page for all subpages of a given kind. Just an idea; anybody can do it. I would, eventually.  :-) --Larry Sanger 17:25, 8 September 2007 (CDT)

To add to the page

It would be great if someone would explain when to use a Catalog, and when to use Related Articles. I think some people are confused about this, because they make Catalogs out of what appear to me to be simply Related Articles pages. I'd do this myself but...I'm in the middle of other things!

Actually, we need to detail CZ:Catalogs. I should have done that long ago, but... --Larry Sanger 10:40, 13 September 2007 (CDT)

categories

How do we add or change the category that an article has? Richard Jensen 00:42, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Click on the orange M to the right (will link to the metadata template). There are three fields (cat1, cat2 and cat3). Add or remove the workgroups from those fields. Chris Day (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2007 (CDT)
Thanks! Richard Jensen 00:54, 26 September 2007 (CDT)

Default expanded checklist

Don't you think it's useful to have the checklist expanded on the talk page by default? I do anyway... --Larry Sanger 15:40, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that would be good, i assume that is possible but i don't know how off hand. Chris Day (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

But it's collapsed by default...doesn't the code actually specify that?

I'd have to research that, I've never had a need to use the collapsible boxes before. Chris Day (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

"ifeq" bug

Notice on Evidence-based medicine you'll see #ifeq: Evidence-based medicine just below the template...a bug, I assume? Can you fix that? I suppose I should offer to help, let me know. --Larry Sanger

It's under discussion here. The long and short of it is that Subpages + the Metadata templates + checklists are so devilishly complex and the issue so erratic that it's not a "quick fix". --ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 22:01, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

Geez, I'm out of it. I didn't even remember that I reported the bug before!  :-) --Larry Sanger 22:03, 23 October 2007 (CDT)

"Unused"

Do all subpaged pages need to have "Page/Unused"? This makes Special:Lonelypages unusable. --Alexander Wiebel 12:39, 14 November 2007 (CST)

I believe the answer is no, and once I'm done converting the pages that have the old subpage template to the new one, I'm going to be reviewing that list and submitting deletes for those pages. --Robert W King 12:44, 14 November 2007 (CST)

Abstracts

I noticed earlier that it was written in CZ_Talk:Article_Mechanics that perhaps we should be writing abstracts for the articles. Should we put an "abstract" subpage ability in the template? --Robert W King 14:26, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Do the intros to do that acceptably? Not sure. On the other hand, if we ever do something site-wide and snazzy with popovers, abstracts would be just awesome, since the text in the popover could be made to display the abstract. Stephen Ewen 21:08, 14 January 2008 (CST)

I have always thought of the intro as an abstract not a true introduction. In fact the best articles I have read have the first section as an "overview" which is the true introduction. If that makes sense? Chris Day (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2008 (CST)

Random subpages?

Maybe this has been discussed before, but I didn't find it (or maybe it's not that big a deal...)
I'm one of those people that likes to hit the "random page"-button a few times once in a while... Just for the fun of it. Thing is, every now and then a subpage (e.g. XX/Related articles) pops up, instead of its main article. Since CZ isn't that big yet and most pages do not yet have a full set of subpages, this isn't really a problem. It will become "problematic" when we get more articles and more subpages. Pressing "Random page" will then be more likely to come up with a subpage instead of a main article.
Two possible solutions: 1) the "Random page" button goes (not my favourite solution), or 2) subpages are not included in the "Random page"-pool (if at all technically possible). Martijn Lens 13:42, 29 January 2008 (CST)

It's been brought up on the forums. --Robert W King 13:49, 29 January 2008 (CST)
Ah, thanks. I'll have a look there, then. Martijn Lens 13:51, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Default display of checklist data

Is there a reason we aren't displaying checklist data (including, especially, status and categories) by default (expanded)? I think we should be. --Larry Sanger 20:03, 10 February 2008 (CST)

I can add these. Chris Day (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Graphic needed

This could be improved in various ways. For example, an annotated screen capture of a subpage template would be groovy. --Larry Sanger 11:46, 21 February 2008 (CST)

I can do this too. Possibly use an example of an approved and unapproved as well as a stub with the red links to the three default subpages. Chris Day (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Filtering subpages from "Special:Uncategorized"?

The "Special:Uncategorized" page is difficult to use effectively at the moment because about 99.9% of the entries that show up on it are "/Approval" pages whose underlying articles actually are categorized. This ties in with the discussion of "Categories or Not?" above, I assume, but would it be possible to add a switch to that page to filter out everything but actual article pages? (There may already be such a thing but I have been unable to find it.) Not a huge burning issue but it could be convenient. Thanks. Bruce M.Tindall 15:19, 21 February 2008 (CST)

Hi bruce, I just noticed this. I can easily add an approval page category to those pages to get them out of the "Special:Uncategorized" section. Chris Day (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2008 (CST)
I just added a category to the approval subpage. They should disappear from "Special:Uncategorized" unless they do not have a {{subpages}} template. Chris Day (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2008 (CST)

Add a "Quotations" subpage type?

I'd like to suggest adding another optional subpage, "Quotations". Many biographical articles will have quotations from the subject, and they would seem to me to be an ideal thing to have a subpage for. J. Noel Chiappa 11:15, 7 March 2008 (CST)

I agree this would be a useful page. Chris Day (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2008 (CST)
I think having a subpage devoted to quotations is a reasonable idea, although I have some concerns about the feasibility and usefulness of them, and the way that it will fit with the general CZ ethos. In particular, I feel pretty strongly that a list of one- or two-line quotations looks sort of junky and might not be very useful. On the other hand, though, longer quotations are potentially in conflict with fair use policy. We might have had an easier time with fair use if we had chosen cc-by-nc-sa as our license...
At any rate, it might be nice if we could develop some guidelines for quotation subpages, to ensure that our quotations are long enough and well-glossed enough to be a useful addition to our clusters. Thanks, Brian P. Long 13:19, 7 March 2008 (CST)
This would be the logical step following the prescribed application process. First we would have to decide on a name for the subpage. Ideally something short, Quotes would be better than Quotations (so it can fit easily in the tab at the top). I started down this route for a history subpage although it got nixed early on. Maybe we could start a proposal at CZ:Quotes? Chris Day (talk) 13:38, 7 March 2008 (CST)

I agree that a quotes page is a very good idea - I would like to see some discipline though - I think we need quotes to be properly attributed to their original source, so that their context can be properly checked. Gareth Leng 05:10, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

I have already tested it here, as the short version "Quotes", not as "Quotations". It would a very useful subpage type, especially for biographical articles. —Arne Eickenberg 15:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Honorees

Sample: Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award/Honorees

(A lot of other award pages will need "Winners" and "Nominees", but "Honorees" seems most appropriate in this case.)

Since there is no forum yet, I will have to suggest it here. Thoughts on it? Petréa Mitchell 22:39, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

This isn't a bad idea, but thinking about it crystallizes a concern I'm having - there are lot of good ideas for new subpages (e.g. my "Quotations", above), but the current mechanism for having them appear as tabs in the header is not conducive to a greatly expanded list.
So I'm wondering if there's a way to recode the tabs stuff (e.g. to use a list of subpage names kept in the metadata) to allow a virtually unlimited pool of potential subpages (subject to approval, of course - I'm speaking of "unlimited" in a technical sense).
I'm too tired to look at the code right now to see if it's feasible (maybe Chris Day has more insight into how plausible it would be). My sense is that we could allow up to a modest maximum number of tabs (the way we do with categories now) without too much difficulty. J. Noel Chiappa 22:47, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
There is no limit to the number of different subpages. The relevant page, similar to the metadata idea, is Template:Subpage_list_2. The exhaustive list available will always be at the top of each talk page (click show on the unused subpages). Is this what you mean or am I missing your point? Chris Day (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2008 (CDT).
Well, mechanically we have to edit {{Optional button 3}} and {{Subpage list 2}} to add new subpage types (although the former can be done in batches), but that's not very painful, it's simple compared to the approval process. I was mostly worried that eventually we'd hit some sort of size limit, if we have to list each possible subpage type in those two templates (actually emit the tabs) - and I would think that it would increase the page rendering time if that list gets really long. But I dunno, maybe we'll run out of plausible subpage types in another dozen or two, so the issue of whether the current scheme will work with, say, two hundred possible sub-pages is a non-issue (that's the kind of number I had in mind when I wrote my previous comment). J. Noel Chiappa 08:00, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
Astute!!!. Yes that is exactly right but it that is not too much a problem. Especially since the creation of new subpages is relatively slow. So I should calrify, i don't consider there to be a limit to the number of "official subpages". Any additions that need to be made are relatively trivial. Another thing is that each new subpages needs a unique header template. For example, {{Related Articles header}}. With regard to hundreds, possibly rendering time will tell. I think it should be alright. I'll think about using the metadata template alone, it would definitely speed things up. This might be more useful when we get a drop down menu interface that will ensure subpage names are consistent.
I really do plan to write all this up soon, but one thing that stops me is I have a more streamlined version of the subpages code in the wings. The idea is that it uses much less space on each page as well as having a diagnostic function. For example, if the pagename field in the metadata page is not the same as the article name an error message will appear on the talk page. A summary of a much older version exists at Template_talk:Subpages4#usage_here_for_now. I want to write something similar which is more up-to-date, that version is so old many of the templates used for it have been deleted. The streamlined version of subpages will also have a more intuitive naming system (from my perspective) for the templates. My problem is I don't have enough spare hours to sit down and really crack this and we seem to be limping along fine with this current dinosaur. Chris Day (talk) 11:28, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

A clear (interim) candidate for a subpage type for lists of award winners would be CZ:Catalogs. --Larry Sanger 00:25, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

That was my first reaction, too. Damon Knight Memorial Grand Master Award/Catalogs/Catalog of Honorees is the where that would live. No need to let writing be held up for lack of "perfect" place. :-) Stephen Ewen 01:19, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
And, in fact, the catalog subpage was the first place I put them. But then I got to thinking about when the random reader who we are supposed to be writing for comes to the main article page, and wants to know who won the award. What in the world is going to prompt them to connect that need with a tab labeled "Catalogs"?
In case anyone is tempted to say, "We'll make new readers learn that our meaning of 'catalogs' is different than what they think," let me point you to Web usability expert Jakob Nielsen's first law: Users spend most of their time on other Web sites. (Meaning, they arrive at your site with certain expectations about how the world works and if your site doesn't fulfill them, they'll leave rather than investing the time to learn your site's own little peculiarities.)
Besides, I couldn't leave the list on the catalog page because the process for adding types calls for a sample of a proposed new subpage to exist before it can be discussed. Petréa Mitchell 11:24, 11 March 2008 (CDT)

Having not met violent resistance to the idea, I've created CZ:Honorees per the next step in the instructions. Petréa Mitchell 21:39, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

Another one: "Glossary"

Another suggested systemwide type: "Glossary". J. Noel Chiappa 11:33, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

Glossary would be useful for the many realms which contain their own private language - from computer games to religious movements, professions and academic areas. Not sure what the wiki syntax is to use dl, dt, dd or dfn elements though. --Tom Morris 11:37, 19 April 2008 (CDT)
I agree, this is a fantastic idea. I know in the past it has been discussed that we could put this information on a Catalog subpage, but this makes more sense to me. --Todd Coles 15:31, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

"Biography", "Reception" and "Simile"

I'm currently working on an article on a scientific theory, but I want to keep the main article more or less free from additional material. Instead of including the biography of the theory's author in the main article, it could be possible to include it on the subpage Biography. Similarly for the theory's reception: The main article would only include a short paragraph, with an extensive coverage of the theory's reception on the subpage Reception. (This subpage type could also be used e.g. for articles about works of art like films, novels etc.) I know there is the subpage Addendum, where I could include all this, but I would want to use that subpage for an overview of similar theories, theoretical predecessors etc.. On the other hand, such related material could also be entered on a subpage Simile. (??) Well, I personally think that since we have the ability to include article-specific subpages, we should allow it — or extend the list of standard subpage types. —Arne Eickenberg 15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A biography should be on page for that person, and -- if necessary -- "Addendum" can be divided into two (or more) subpages, if necessary. I don't think that /Reception would be useful. The reception of a theory (at least, usually) should be on the main page. Peter Schmitt 15:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes only little of a person's biography is known, or there isn't much to say. That would not warrant an additional biographical article. At the moment I have structured it to include the biographical part, the similar theories and the reception all on the Addendum subpage, with only reception to be given an extra paragraph in the main article. Just wanted to know what others think about the idea of splitting it to different subpages. :) —Arne Eickenberg 16:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not enthusiastic about this solution. A short biography is a stub and should be a separate article. I do not see the reason for having two (or more) biographies (or whatever) on various pages and subpages throughout CZ. Having a short biography on an Addendum, to me seems like an invitation for moving it later. Russell D. Jones 21:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)