I made a few minor changes (see diff). Before approval I would like to add some remarks about
- the history of the element and origin of name
- phosphorus is not phosphorescent
- role of d-orbitals in binding
Here a dilemma arises. I would enjoy writing these additions, but then I lose the right to approve the article on my own (in that case David and I need a third chemistry editor, at least, this is how I understand the law). I will contact Larry Sanger about this dilemma.--Paul Wormer 04:01, 21 December 2007 (CST)
David Volk asked Milton Beychok here to approve this article. Milton answered here that the article needs more references. That is why I added two (Stillman and Ketelaar) references.--Paul Wormer 03:40, 27 February 2008 (CST) PS. IMHO this distributed discussion is a serious weakness of the Wiki system.
- I arrived here today to find a ToApprove template indicating that three editors have edited and approved this article. The above documentation by editor Paul Wormer illustrates that there are no longer any issues hindering approval.
APPROVED Version 1.0
Congratulations Chemistry editors! --D. Matt Innis 22:39, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
This approval included an edit that moved the TOC to the left that was considered a copyedit. If there is any problem with this, please let me know and I will remove it. --D. Matt Innis 22:39, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
- Why is Phosphorus > Draft also in the approved category? (Chunbum Park 10:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT))
I think that is the way it is supposed to work. Life/Draft has the same look to it, because the whole cluster gets approved, not just the main page. David E. Volk 10:37, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
Did you change the status to zero before moving copying/moving the main page to draft? That might do it. Perhaps the order of events is the problem, not the actaual events themselves. David E. Volk 13:58, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
- I was thinking something similar. One problem at CZ is that category updates are very slow (by design but don't ask me why, other than it speeds things up). Give this a day and see if we still have a problem. Chris Day (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
Templates and article approval
I think I might see another issue here with the templates. I just updated a template used in an approved article and the approved version of the article changed! It might be possible to add or delete information in this way. Is there any mechanism for capturing a snapshot of all the dependencies (templates, catalogs, pictures, etc)? --David Yamakuchi 00:08, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
- Not really, that I know of, but they can be protected by the cascading protection feature. At present that is not necessary. May be it will be in the future? Chris Day 00:19, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
It's good for where we seem to be now...not many elements even close to approval. It lets us tweak the template and see the results on numerous pages. Thing is, it is really kinda dangerous having newbies (like me :-) poking around and reformatting "ready for prime time" type articles. Just maybe something we should look at for the future...--David Yamakuchi 01:32, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
- Definitely, but as you point out, many of these templates really do need many eyes and protecting them all immediately would mean nothing gets improved. Besides I thought you were working on a sandbox version? To date we have had no reckless editors. Are you trying to warn citizendium that you might be the first? ;) Chris Day 01:34, 4 April 2008 (CDT)
- Who me?!!! Reckless?!! Well I neve...ah...ahem, :-) well, it's BOLD I say, and anyway I just thought it might be a good idea to freeze the template (and other pages) versions on the approved page itself. Maybe there is some way we can get an approved page to link to the _versions_ of things that were current when they were approved? IDK, but it would make it easier to ensure we knew what people were going to see when they open an "approved" page...formatting wise. The drafts can stay current of course. The drafts dont have to be polished.