User talk:Chris Day/Archive 1

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

Chris' Talk Page

I am an editor in the biology workgroup | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Current talk page (93,380)


Useful links on Citizendium
User:Chris day/newmessage

I aim to restrict my replies to this talk page....

My hope is to preserve the context of each discussion rather than having them fragmented on mutliple talk pages. So please check back here for replies to messages you leave, thanks. Please sign comments with four tildes ~~~~ This makes it a lot easier to follow the ebb and flow of a discussion with multiple users. Indents are also useful to help track the sequence of replies and can be achieved using colons such as : or ::. Chris Day (Talk) 23:32, 13 November 2006 (CST)

For the benefit of newcomers, I mention that this can easily done by putting the page on one's watchlist, or setting the preferences to do so automatically.DavidGoodman

Lead in homeopathy

It's been suggested (not by me) that the new CZ style might incorprate a short and simple boxed message, and that for this article, that box might contain the text:

"Homeopathy is an Alternative Medicine system that tries to treat illnesses with tiny doses of the drugs that cause the same symptom as the illness. Homeopathy is based on the ideas of Samuel Hahnemann, a 19th century physician who observed that some contemporary medicines evoked symptoms similar to those of the illnesses for which they were prescribed. There is no clear evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic remedies, and it is likely that the reported effects are placebo effects."

Keeping this here so we can see how it looks if and when style issues advanceGareth Leng 12:25, 9 November 2006 (CST)

That would make more sense. I have been trying to track down the CZ style guide/ideas with no luck. I have seen discussion here and there but nothing concrete. Am I missing something obvious? Chris Day (Talk) 12:31, 9 November 2006 (CST)
Hi Chris, No, you're missing nothing obvious, except that there is the intention to establish a new style on CZ but no firm proposals yet as to what that should be, just some suggestions as to what it might include. One of the initial functions of the pilot I think is to start discussions and experiments with style and layout.
Everything has been moving fast but unevenly; it's still very, very early days.Gareth Leng 06:55, 10 November 2006 (CST)
OK i'll kep my eye open for these discussions. Chris Day (Talk) 16:22, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Thank you Chris for your help. Nancy Sculerati MD 13:04, 24 November 2006 (CST)

Moving pages to avoid piping links

Rather than moving pages or piping links, I would put in redirects on the alternative spellings or capitalisations. The article should reside at the correct name with the correct capitalisation, not the common of most often used name. On the other spellings put in code like # REDIRECT [ [ SomePage ] ] to guide users automatically to the correct page without having to pipe anthing.

That is a good point. I had forgotten that redirects could be used for alternative forms. Chris Day (Talk) 08:30, 1 December 2006 (CST)

?? No idea??Gareth Leng 12:10, 4 December 2006 (CST)

We need to start building a Style manual with stuff like this, or maybe Help 2.0 David Tribe 15:02, 29 January 2007 (CST)


Here's an e.coli on a government site that we could grab, but it is B/W. I'll keep looking for a good color photo. --D. Matt Innis 16:35, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Chris, check out the salmonella picture on the NIH website. It's colorful [1] --D. Matt Innis 14:14, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Chris, could you take a look at these 2 articles?

In Barbara McClintock, I made some changes as per your suggestions and hope that accuracy has been improved. Would you please take a look? Secondly, if you look at my user page (talk) you'll see a reference that David Tribe put in for the first genetic map. I need to correct a mistake I made about that in biology, but I do think that we should try to work in the concept of a genetic map, can you help? thanks, Nancy Sculerati MD 08:19, 10 December 2006 (CST) Please take a look at the biology talk page.Nancy Sculerati MD 12:25, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Biology marathon

Chris, I'm writing a letter to Larry, and then putting it up in Forums- look for it. Meanwhile, I'm going through all the history of article and the discussion to see who contributed. I need that information for the text of the letter. In doing so, I came across a comment you made about a correction you did in the part about proteins (your comment was something like: the proteins were not sequenced, the DNA was). The correction is fine, it's just that your comment made me realize the age difference between us, and how that colors our point of view. When I was an undergraduate back in the 70's, the big news was sequencing proteins, forget about DNA. It was a big deal to figure out the exact amino acid sequence and then laboriously "hand calculate" how they folded and what the exposed sites were and do the experiments that confirmed the structure. Anyway, as much as we may have irritated each other along the way of the biology marathon, I want you to know that when I wrote it was a pleasure to work with people who are kind and bright in my user page- I was very much thinking of you. Nancy Sculerati MD 08:41, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Nancy, Thank you for your kind words, although you may be underestimating my age :) When I was an undergraduate Fred Sanger was still a hot topic, my lecturer believed he could have won three Nobel prizes for his work. And they did not let us forget how lucky we were to be able to use the new dideoxy sequencing, let alone not having to attempt Edman degradation. That said, i worked in a mitochondrial lab for quite a few years and there I did experience the importance and distinction of peptide sequencing. Firstly, to identify the cleaveage point of the mitochondrial import peptide it was critical to determine the peptide sequence of the amino terminal. Secondly, rarely we found discrepancies between the mtcDNA and mtDNA sequences. This was obviously a big deal since it could potentially lead to a different amino acid in the protein. Of course, we later realised that these were not our sequencing errors but rather an observation of the bizarre RNA editing that can occur in the mitochondia. In summary, we always need to be aware of where our sequence comes from, either DNA cDNA or peptide. I think you are correct to suspect that much of this is lost on the new generation of scientists. In fact, recently i had a graduate student who did not recognise the rRNA bands on their northern blot! I was blown away, but should not be surprised since we these topic are barely mentioned in lecture these days.
Anyway i think the team effort made the biology article come out pretty well. I look forward to future collaborations. Actually, I see McClintock is already on standby for number two! Chris Day (Talk) 11:06, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Talk link

Chris, what did you do to get the (talk) at the end of you signature? It's driving me crazy not to be able to just click on the talk link! --D. Matt Innis 10:30, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Matt, first you need to set up your preferred signature in the my preferences above. Write into the signature box [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] (make sure you tick the raw signature box). If you paste that wikicode into the box, every time you type the four tildes your signature will look like this --> Matt Innis (Talk), with links to your user page and talk page. I hope this helps. Chris Day (Talk) 12:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)
This is my test... wish me luck --D. Matt Innis 12:25, 19 December 2006 (CST)
lol! I'll try it again.. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:27, 19 December 2006 (CST)
YES! Thank you!!! --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:27, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Chris, re your proposal to remove certain external links in "Systems Biology" article

Chris, you say you're not sure we need the external links to labs and conferences in the 'Systems Biology' article. I feel strongly that they add to the quality of the article. For example, clicking on the link to the Institute for Systems Biology provides the reader with additional depth on the goals and approaches in the discipline not contained in the CZ article, examples of application, and webcasts. CZ gains that at little cost in space or distraction.

Moreover, those labs and conferences abound with experts in many fields, as systems biology operates as an interdisciplinary discipline. Whether those experts discover the CZ article linking to their sites, or we apprise them of the article (or related articles) as potentially benefitting from their expertise, CZ may have a chance of gaining their participation in the project.

I would suggest a compromise: Let's leave the links in, and I will go through each one, eliminating those sites that offer the reader little or no added-value to the main "Systems Biology' article.

Thanks for considering this.

Anthony.Sebastian 13:31, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Retrieved from ""

Hi Anthony, certainly i can live with having some of the links. It just seemed a little strange having an exhautive list. One wouldn't consider such a list appropriate for a more mature science. Chris Day (Talk) 15:32, 19 December 2006 (CST)


No way! Real Life - what's that! Thanks so much, hopefully you can get back to help me clean up before we approve. Thanks Chris. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:10, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Chris - can you make one more read through on the chiropractic article and make sure it satisfies your concerns. That way when we get Nancy and Gareth back, we'll be ready to approve quicker. I think the links look much better and the article is better for it. Thank you! --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:40, 21 December 2006 (CST)


Chris, please look at metabolism, when you have a chance.Nancy Sculerati MD 09:45, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Cereals Template

Thanks The gif image is working well now in the cereals template. All the dopey glitecvhes in wheat are now fixed thanks Dave David Tribe 00:03, 3 January 2007 (CST)


Chris, could you kindly look at wheat, when you have a chance? It is nearing approval. Thanks. Nancy Sculerati MD 09:03, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Main Template

I wrote the main template the way I did in order to get something up there, because red template links everywhere looked ugly. So if you want to improve on it, go for it! The primary purpose for pipelinks there is to make the names make more sense. "Please see our article on subtopic (topic) isn't as pretty, but that's not a crucial feature. Thanks for your help! --ZachPruckowski 13:51, 25 January 2007 (CST)

No problem, I'll play with it then, I just wanted to make sure I was not stepping on toes. I think you make a good point with respect to the subtopic (topic). i see another user has shown interest in the template too so we should be able to work it out together. Chris Day (Talk) 13:54, 25 January 2007 (CST)

Edits to Approved articles

YEs you're right about my abilities on editing. With Biology I took the initiative to clean up some minor glitches that were passing by uncorrected, and I was mindful of the surge in usage and pageviews that we are experiencing. My approach has been to leave overt electronic traces of my actions so that they are transparent. BTW A Google Image search of 'PLoS Biology' provides images galore, including better images of bacteria than we have been using.David Tribe 14:35, 25 January 2007 (CST)

yes I liked Biology 1.2 and found one redundant word in last sentance if i recall correctly David Tribe 01:10, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Recent Image Uploads

Can you try to provide more info when you upload pictures? It's not enough to say "from Wikimedia commons". We need to know the license of the picture and where it came from. If you could at least include a hyperlink to the appropriate commons page, that'd be appreciated. --ZachPruckowski 14:29, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Oops my bad, i was going to go back and do it at my leasure, as well as writing a more detailed descritpion. Thanks for doing the leg work for me!! Chris Day (Talk) 15:26, 26 January 2007 (CST)
No Problem! -- ZachPruckowski 15:56, 26 January 2007 (CST)


A single white feather closeup.jpgMorning Glory Pool2.jpgAmanita muscaria tyndrum.jpg Mariposa Grove Squoias.JPG
Misc pollen.jpg
LightRefractsOf comb-rows of ctenophore Mertensia ovum.jpg
117pxSerengeti Lion Running1.jpg
Biology studies the variety of life

This is quite a tricky manoever ! David Tribe 16:20, 26 January 2007 (CST)

You think it is too complicated? i could just stitch them together as one jpg. Does it look a mess in your browser or do they all align tightly? The potential incompatability with different browsers might be a stumbling block unless there is some code tweeking that will work to fix it in firefox (at least). Looks good on my Safari browser though. Chris Day (Talk) 16:30, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Waatchout. Might be good to give file new file names as the images on the approved biology artivcle look shocking on my browser at the moment David Tribe 21:10, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Just hold 5 min Im fixing to approved copy David Tribe 21:16, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I don't think the file names are the problem but rather the coding of the table that makes up the montage. I can't trouble shoot on my MAC at present until i download a browser where i can recreate the problem. Good idea to comment out the table. I would be fine if you deleted it too., i have a copy here on my talk page to play with. Chris Day (Talk) 14:21, 27 January 2007 (CST)
The Biology image issue was a learning experience. My comments just above were made while I was nearly panicking in the middle of doing some approval stuff with things going wrong ALL over the place. Now that things have quietened down, and I'm moving along with welcoming new arrivals I noticed that you did the honours when I arrived, and I'm now really seeing the value in a helping hand to people who are a bit lost at the start. At that time I had very little idea of why people were usking about my userpage cos I didnt even knoe I had one (not having used one much at WP. Thanks. Maybe some thought can even be given to expanding the welcome template to be even more helpful ? Maybe not?
Possibly you didn't pick up on it (or have discussed it somewhere I missed), but the reloads you kindly and appropriatly made of images (typhoid) for Biology/Draft caused problems in the then approved Biology version. We need to highlight procedures for image re-upload - a warning to check if some uses of the existing figure lack thumbs perhaps on the upload page? Or a Advisory to give a different file name like Finch2.jpg when it replaces smaller Finch1.jpg? A rule of thumb (!) to always use thumbs? Do you see my point?
Do you have any good advice about primary image size. If we exceed the suggested 150 odd k and always use small thumbs are bandwidth problems solved?
cheers David Tribe 20:24, 28 January 2007 (CST)
Hi David,
  • Welcome template: I just checked your talk page and sure enough I did help you a bit. Bit of a lame welcome though, all business no play ;) A simple template might not be a bad idea. I think it would be good to include links to how-to get started sort of pages. Certainly we need a page that explains how to use all the wikicode, as well as some general advice such as pointing out the useful tools such as the what links here and user contributions in the navigation bar to the left. I can remember being completely lost when i first used a wiki and it would have been good to learn those trick earlier than later.
  • Changing image; size issues: Now I understand your comments above. I intially thought you were referring to the pictures in the montage. I now realise it was the knock on effect in the approved article with respect to the other figures you were refering too. I forgot that those figure changes would also be detrimental to the layout of the approved version, sorry to give you a panic attack. I'm still trying to get used to having two articles to consider (approved and draft). This type of conflict should not be a big issue in the future since the only reason those images in the biology article were coded that way was due to the fact that the imaging software (sizing) was not up and running in the early days here at CZ. Now it is fixed, the images should always have their sizes defined. With regard to size of the original picture.
  • Changing image; bandwidth issues: I say upload the highest quality one available and obviously that is what i was doing. I don't believe there are any bandwidth issues, although, Zach might have a better idea or at least know who to ask. Chris Day (Talk) 02:28, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Re Image fixed quest

Ooo yes, it does look good now. I'm running Firefox 2.x in a Windows WP home environment now. I can check in in Windows explorer too. This is THE way to run browser checks! wiki checking. David Tribe 14:58, 29 January 2007 (CST)

OK in that case I'll extend the change into the draft version. Then at least you have the code for the next update. Chris Day (Talk) 15:04, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Good thinking Bullwinkle. (:0). On IE 7 on the same machine there is just a tiny white gap under the Big Earth picture tho. David Tribe 15:11, 29 January 2007 (CST)
On my IE7, montage in approved Biology appears without gaps, and otherwise looks good, too. Could extend image horizontally with additional lifeforms. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:18, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Anthony, check out the other good picture here. Or make requests. I can easily add more or switch picture in and out. Chris Day (Talk) 17:50, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Personally, I'm not having issues with the image (Safari 2 and Konqueror), but I sort of feel like it might be worth looking into just linking a fixed montage image to a gallery if possible, or else using an ImageMap of some kind. I mean, I feel like this issue is solvable, but browsers change over time, and we also need a solution that's implementable in other articles. Both of those require some work on the backend, but then again, so does this. -- ZachPruckowski 18:14, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Hey Zach, this is an excellent idea. It will solve the compatability issues while still allowing the images to be accessible. I'll get started on it. First I'll have to figure out what image map is all about but the example they showed was very effective. In the short term, using an gallery will work very well. Chris Day (Talk) 12:21, 30 January 2007 (CST)
We would have to install an extension. It's doable. If you decide to go for it, email and I'll get it on the list of things to do. -- ZachPruckowski 12:33, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Another use that will be much more practical is for metabolic pathway diagrams. It will be excellent to be able to click on different metabolites and then be pointed to the CZ page about that molecule. Interactive figures could work really well for the project and we really should do it in the future. I'll e-mail them, although, I would not consider it a priority at this point. Chris Day (Talk) 12:38, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Chris: In Biology, the large blank space between the open image (montage) and the 'table of contents' could accommodate leftward additions, strengthening ilustration of the "variety of lifeforms" concept. I like most of the images in the 'commons' link you gave above. Especially the gaping feline. Beyond my techability to help, however. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:28, 29 January 2007 (CST)
I can incorporate some more to the left if people don't think it looks cluttered. I'll put together some options and incorporate in Zach's idea of a gallery or image map functionality. Chris Day (Talk) 12:21, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Read your other notes Chris I understand in general whats going on and agree for the moment (weeks, months?) we should revert the montage to a fixed jpg. This has been a good learning experience, and the Imagemap extension for things like metabolic pathways seems a good idea. Have fun wth the images . Love the ?Yellowstone pool. Need it in orins of life or whereever David Tribe 14:01, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Just added a new version of the montage extending some pictures out to the left. I also added the gaping feline and replaced the running lion with a dolphin. Possibly a fish would be more appropriate since mammals are already well represented? I'm a bit worried that adding more begins to make it look more cluttered. If others agree which should go? If you like this new montage but don't like one of the pictures which would you like replaced and with what? We have many other photos at wikimedia commons that could be used to substitute these examples. Thanks for any feedback. Chris Day (Talk) 01:31, 31 January 2007 (CST)
Ooooooooh. A thing of beauty is a joy forever David Tribe 01:59, 31 January 2007 (CST) aka Milton. Bugs in space yo. I like that! David Tribe 02:00, 31 January 2007 (CST)
OK so it sounds like we can stick with this ;) Obviously this is a very small version. I'll make a bigger version for the actual biology article. Then I'll make a gallery for the pictures with a more detailed description of each photo. re: bugs in space, i really was thinking that when i placed it there. i thought the krills compound eye would make a nice moon too, or is that a death star? Chris Day (Talk) 02:04, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Other pictures

100px E coli at 10000x, original.jpg Daphnia pulex.png Salmonella typhimurium.png Bottlenose Dolphin KSC04pd0178.jpg

Plagiomnium affine laminazellen.jpeg MEF microfilaments.jpg 100px 100px 100px

Krilleyekils.jpg 100px 100px 100px 80px

100px 100px 100px 80px

Airedale terrier 744.jpg Texas longhorn.jpg SalersBreed Cow 2.JPG HighlandCow.01.jpg German Pinscher.JPG

Damara People Namibia.jpg Mykonos Market.jpg Rhode Island Red.jpg Cochin miniatura (rasa kur) u6.jpg


Re A N W in history logs


I discovered what W in the history log means. It seems to be done automatically when you call on special WP templates I used some code (including a command) specifying small references and 2 columns from WP RNA interference article and the W appeared. David Tribe 01:38, 31 January 2007 (CST) Ooo luverly pix BTW.

On second thoughts the W appeared when I un-commented your montage code in Biology/DraftDavid Tribe 01:56, 31 January 2007 (CST)

It appears if the "Content is from Wikipedia" box is checked. It seems to have starting defaulting to checked around the time you removed those comments. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 10:58, 31 January 2007 (CST)

New Biology/draft montage


Hey, Anthony, is this the sort of thing you had in mind? Chris Day (Talk) 01:23, 31 January 2007 (CST)

  • Chris, yes. Cool. Very nice. Do you make the montage's in PhotoShop?
  • I know we can upload jpegs. Can we download uploaded ones for editing? Not that I want to edit your neat one, but for future reference. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 10:30, 31 January 2007 (CST)
    • Hi Anthony, yes this montage was put together with photoshop, i have cropped some of the pictures (dolphin and plant cell) and rotated others (feather and daphnia). I am not sure on the restrictions with respect to editing. I assume rotating and cropping are fine. More creative uses I am not so sure about, I would guess it is OK. This might be a good question to bring up on the forums. Chris Day (Talk) 10:44, 1 February 2007 (CST)

That looks great! Have you seen this wikimedia help page on linking it to a gallery of some kind? That is the current plan, right? -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 10:58, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I have set up an initial (crude) gallery at Biology/Gallery. I will work on making it such that a click of the pciture sends to the gallery, the link you provided looks interesting. Thanks for your help, clearly there are many resources out there of which I am ignorant. Chris Day (Talk) 10:50, 1 February 2007 (CST)

It looks really great Chris David Tribe 04:43, 2 February 2007 (CST)

recruitment letter

Could you help me with this? health science recruitment letter. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 23:46, 31 January 2007 (CST)

I'll take a look when I have time. I think the priority should be to target emeritus faculty. They might have more time and interest to pursue this project. By the way I am probably not the best for giving advice on the health sciences letter. I'm not sure I know what kind of language would sweeten the deal for a medically oriented editor. Chris Day (Talk) 10:40, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Wikimedia Templates

Just looking at titles, all of those look pretty good. We definitely need to get on top of those sorts of templates, and we need to make copyright identification as straightforward as possible. I'll email the constables with a protection request for the GFDL.. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 18:57, 1 February 2007 (CST)

If you want to get rid of them, use {{Template:Speedydelete}}. Make sure to sign it, and mention that it you created them and you were the only contributor. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Three Year Olds

I don't know, three year olds can be pretty persistent. And if you want to help with putting toddlers to bed on the forums, feel free. :-) -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 11:38, 2 February 2007 (CST)

P.S. Something was wrong with your new message template. I'm not sure if we support that specific syntax (the /w/index.php?whatever stuff). It was throwing an odd message from 2 months ago. I'll try to get someone to look into it - I suspect it has to be fixed over SSH. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 11:38, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Strange, I just checked it on my system (MAC) and it worked no problem. See edit prior to this one in the history. Chris Day (Talk) 12:09, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Foreget above I just relaised you had already fixed it. \. On the GNU templates I noticed there was some syntax that was not working for optional fields in the info box. i have not tried to figure it out yet. In retrospect i will send that to the bug people to think about since it might cause problem down the road. Chris Day (Talk) 12:14, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks for help with the Domestic Animals Gallery

Chris, thanks so much for your continuing help with this! Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 16:36, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Lead by example and hopefully others will chip in. I was trying to find a good calico for the genetics article (X inactivation) but there were none of a high enough quality. Also the sphinx cats look pretty cool and might be useful for an article on hair genetics. Likewise the Siamese will be useful for the concept of temperature sensitive mutations. So its all in a good cause :) Chris Day (Talk) 16:42, 2 February 2007 (CST)

More on Templates

Well, I think the images issue is going to be tied to whether we "re-fork". I mean, currently, if we don't get the WP articles back, we need our own template system. But if we take the WP articles, we can inherit their template system and simply clean it up. But before we can decide that, we need to figure out the license issue (if we're not GFDL, we can't re-import). So essentially, we have two large policy issues to solve before we can look into the technical questions. We also need a large tech team (as measured in expert-person-hours) overall. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 17:36, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Two ref columns in biology=

CODE used ==References== ;Citations <div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;"> <references /> </div>

I don't know what the moz -column- means. Could this be the source of Mac mozilla or Safari issues Do CZ lack a Mozilla 2 column add on ? David Tribe 22:39, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Comparison experimet

This is an experiment to compare the last version of biology/draft vs biology approved. Chris Day (Talk) 11:39, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Wow! how did you do that. David Tribe 13:40, 5 February 2007 (CST)
Look at the numbers is the URL link. Each one of the 9 digit numbers represents a specific edit in CZ. Comparisons can be done between any two edits, not just those on one page. Who would have thunk it? :) Chris Day (Talk) 13:43, 5 February 2007 (CST)
Thats pretty useful. Do you want to put it in the approval process for re-approved pages?. BTW some time soon, after a bit of discussion, we should think of approving the latest Biology/Draft.As you can see I picked up two more trivial typos. (One was a blank space, and I now realise where mystifying color diffs come from. We should air the double refs cols and your montage gallery. I think your new montage is a big plus, and if we put it up for approval soon, Ruth Ifsher will still remember how to do it. David Tribe 13:56, 5 February 2007 (CST)
PS I had a side email chat with Larry S about the A and N tagging idea and he said hold till after some other programming stuff on the columns is finished David Tribe 14:01, 5 February 2007 (CST)
That may be moot, now that we have this ability to compare directly to the biology approved version. Chris Day (Talk) 14:06, 5 February 2007 (CST)
If she forgets that quickly I guess we must keep here busy. :) I have no idea about double column code and incompatability . i am picking this up as I go along and that is out of my league. i wish there was a source to explain all this wiki code. i looked around on the web but nothing jumped out.
As far as the ability to easily compare the latest draft to the latest approved, this seems, to me, like a must have tool. For me it is most important that it is an avalable option in the history of bioogy/draft. However, I like the idea of having it as an easy click in the approval template (i think this is wht you are suggesting above). I wonder if there is an easy way to do it? Manually cutting and pasting the numbers is a pain, although doable. Worse it is a bit esoteric, i bet the coders can somehow make it automatic. Don't ask me how though. Chris Day (Talk) 14:06, 5 February 2007 (CST)

WP template

Try this. I think you just type WP|page name (or wikipeida|page name, whatever you choose to call the template - in double curly brackets, of course)

This page uses content from Wikipedia. The original article was at {{{1}}}. The list of authors can be seen in the page history. The text of Wikipedia is available under the GNU Free Documentation License.

James F. Perry 13:20, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the help, that workaround is a good solution. Chris Day (Talk) 13:30, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Test {{wikipedia}} Chris Day

Test {{wikipedia|biology}}


Approval RNA interference

Thanks for your RNAi edits Ive put an approval template on RNA interference, so its time to roll 7 day deadline. Lets try and get another one up. David Tribe 23:58, 6 February 2007 (CST)


I could use a hand right now Robert Tito | Talk 00:53, 9 February 2007 (CST)

some bull

they get persistent Robert Tito | Talk 01:19, 9 February 2007 (CST) my page is gone good by them :)

User versus User redirect

Now I understand: The redirects were there originally, not put there by YOU KNOW WHO.! David Tribe 12:08, 9 February 2007 (CST) good to see you chris

Nice to be back :) Chris Day (Talk) 12:18, 9 February 2007 (CST)


There was no reason or intention to omit your edits and your comments are very welcome. Ill work through how to incorporate them. If you see an easy way please do it and tell me where the url pointer should go. Any clarity issues of course go right in if they make sense. David Tribe 00:47, 10 February 2007 (CST). Ive looked at the logs and think what I did was to revert to the last copy I know Id done and conservatively byppased your edits in a hasty job. Possibly in my haste I was assuming that Chris little day was a vandal candidate at the time I did this. My main motive was to get a correct page displayed quickly. BTW send me an email when you get a chance from the same account you sent from before confirming why Chris Day is now being displayed from your user page, or tell me in that email what you think d . Your remarks of course are all diagnostic of the real Chris Day who obviously knows this topic .David Tribe 01:03, 10 February 2007 (CST)

Hi David, I just sent you an e-mail. If you are referring to my signature, that has always been with a captital. I naively didn't think it would make a difference. Of course, we are now becoming acutely aware of the subtle differences that can make alarm bells ring. Chris Day (Talk) 01:33, 10 February 2007 (CST)
thanks for RNAi suggestions .Wow image man extraordinaire David Tribe 17:36, 13 February 2007 (CST)
The way I see it there only two issues of substance and we are there. 1. Explicit attribution for first PLoS figure and fixing note [1] Ill do this.

2. About three to four sentances to explain outcome such as histidinne methylation TGS plant compexities as your already questioned. Thanks again AS and CD David Tribe 17:51, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Hey I'm now in my day job (its 14th Feb here) and can pass a casual eye between meetings back in time at your fine night job effort. This is so satisfying. Cheers David Tribe 21:42, 13 February 2007 (CST)


RE DNA of course that was just typed out to form a framework. Its like a kite flying exercise. To trigger the revision and corerection. Wade right in Im taking a nap afeter a long day. Just check every now and again for our friends the MOOVERRS David Tribe 01:27, 12 February 2007 (CST)

You sleep? i have tried to get the terminology fixed, i.e.e base vs nucleotide etc. Need to nail that early so we don't mispropagate throughout the article. Chris Day (Talk) 01:29, 12 February 2007 (CST)

The DNA article is originated from Wikipedia (including all pictures), so I don't think there should be any copyright issues. Stefan von Berg(Talk)

Thats what i think. So why don't we load the full size versions? I'll get started on a few. Chris Day (Talk) 11:13, 12 February 2007 (CST)

Chiropractic as quackery.

You said:

I think the key sentence above is the following: "If your opinion is documented and represents a major view of this concept of vertebral subluxation, and that view is not mentioned in the article or in its links, then the onus is on yourself to suggest the additions or changes, together with the requisite support documentation." Chris Day (Talk) 01:49, 12 February 2007 (CST)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

I'm not attempting to ban anyone, I even agree with you opinion. But seeing more of your rants and less of your work will be a problem if you want to hang around in the long term. You just need to get your hands dirty, i can't see that calling for a delisting is the way to go though. Chris Day (Talk) 02:08, 12 February 2007 (CST)
Chiropractic is a form of good massage and quack medicine. Vertebral subluxation is a bad article, that needs to be deleted. Re-edit, forgot to sign, --Mark Odegard 02:47, 12 February 2007 (CST).

Advice on 'Life'

Taking the Life article in its current draft, what would you like to see further developed or modified. I have much more in mind for this article, especially work on the later sections, but would like to consider the practicality of getting out a draft that qualifies for consideration of approval. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:58, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Priorities First emphasise finishing RNAi then Life and DNA in parallel for me David Tribe 17:34, 13 February 2007 (CST)
David, when you get to Life, let me know if you want me to develop anything. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:19, 14 February 2007 (CST)


most people have a bio listed but you only have your papers. also, could you list the groups you an author for? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:54, 13 February 2007 (CST)

The papers are the best representation of my expertise. What else do you think I should put up? Chris Day (Talk) 23:32, 13 February 2007 (CST)

The license templates

If you're having issues with red links that shouldn't be there, make sure you don't have any w: prefixes in your links. I assume you're borrowing these licensing templates from, where that's a prefix for a English Wikipedia interwiki. So keep an eye out for those, and thanks for copying those templates -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 14:51, 14 February 2007 (CST)

I have rewritten them to be used here so that is not the issue. I am working on the red links article on creative commons is the most obvious one missing. I'm thinking an outside link might be a better route. I'm still in a holding pattern with respect to which how best to do this. Any news on the licenses that will be supported by CZ? Chris Day (Talk) 15:27, 14 February 2007 (CST)
Yeah, that's definitely the number one question we need answered right now. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 15:58, 14 February 2007 (CST)


Chris, this is my conversation so far

Just to be clear, this is what you type " #REDIRECT [[Name Of Target Page]] " Chris Day (Talk) 14:21, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Trying to learn these things
1) How to do bullets
2) When 2 articles are written and you "move" one to the other (aka "redirect") what happens to the information written on both the article page of the one being used? and the information of the article page that is being moved to? What about boh talk pages?
Oh, I see. Well, in this case you definitely want to make a redirect and not a move. A move deletes the article that you're moving to, clears the way as it were. I don't even think the system will let you do that, actually, unless you're a sysop. Anyway, use that "#REDIRECT" code to redirect from platelets to platelet, and then depending about how you feel about them, work in your two sentences from the former into the latter...or whatever. This sort of merger of pages is not something the system is really set up to do. You have to do it by hand.
Eventually we'll have a complete "how to" guide here, or a full and deep set of links to the mediawiki documentation available at and --Larry Sanger 14:18, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Please let me know about the talk pages and the wording when you go to the "move" tab while transferring a page - referring to the talk page. It has a check box and I don't fully understand that yet. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 14:33, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Not sure what you mean by wording. When you move an article, you have the option to move the talk page too. The reason for moving is to preserve the edit history. Otherwise there would be no reason not to cut n' paste. Chris Day (Talk) 14:42, 15 February 2007 (CST)

How do you re-access the page with the redirect after it has been redirected? for example, how would one go back and undo the platelets redirect since when you click the link you end up at platelet. For example, if someone wanted to undo a redirect to make a list of pages that they may be referring to. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 16:32, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Note that after platelets to go to the platelet article there is a little blue link at the top of the page that allows your to go back to the platelets page. Chris Day (Talk) 16:34, 15 February 2007 (CST)

User Contributions - how to access when on their user page?

Hello, I think it would be very useful to have a tab when looking at someone's user's page to see their contributions. What do you think? Also, could you please give me the way of accessing a user's contributions (ie a web address where I can then copy in their user name to the end) to access their contributions page? The only way I know of doing this now is by finding the link on the recent changes page. Please post your reply in user talk page. I made a section for this under replies from other users. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:09, 15 February 2007 (CST)

post here: when you get a chance. I don't know how to work "shift+\ = |" well enough (see wikicode section on links in my talk page) to figure out how to insert this link in wikiformat. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 15:12, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Sort Recent Changes Differently

Regular Recent changes in the project pages box --> Namespace --> user.

Ok, now it lists the same users multiple times if they make multiple edits to their main page. Is there a way to sort that down further so that the repeated same name only appears once?

What I'm really trying to do is scan the new bios for anyone who writes that they are a qualified person to possibly become an editor. Any ideas? Feel free to reply on your talk page please. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:25, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Not sure there is anything better. Chris Day (Talk) 19:41, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Categories Recent Changes Sorting

Hm... ok, how are we going to get the /drafts tagged with Biology Workgroup Categories so that when we do recent changes, we can see the /drafts ones as well on our list. Eventually, there will be a lot more /draft pages and we'll want to see how those are changing. Any ideas? feel free to reply here. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:23, 16 February 2007 (CST)

You didn't notice that i had added [[Category:Biology Workgroup Draft]] to all the draft pages? For example, see this edit. I forsee that any time an article is approved part of the protocol for setting up the new draft page will be tagging it with this category as well as commenting out the other categories. Chris Day (Talk) 00:33, 16 February 2007 (CST)
i just wish that could be combined with .
And then I wish that could be combined with
And you combine multiple lists and so on. One could then monitor many interesting lists at once (ie biology, chemistry, health sciences, etc) without seeing any articles in other fields if they did not wanted. It would just reduce the clicks. But this is a MASSIVE improvement on the system and I am extremely happy with all the work you've done. Congrats and great job! -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:58, 16 February 2007 (CST)
Need programmers to do it as far as i can tell. It is beyond the tools available to us, unless Zach knows a trick? Chris Day (Talk) 00:56, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Health Science Workgroup upgrade

Hello Chris, If you are ever bored, could you do something similar with the Health Sciences Workgroup page? The current recent changes on the health sciences workgroup page doesn't show any articles. When I have more time, i'll try to learn exactly what you did. Until them, I'm off to rock my heme test. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:27, 15 February 2007 (CST)

You rock.-Tom Kelly (Talk) 23:34, 15 February 2007 (CST)
 :) OK I think you're set. I think we are limited to the recent changes associated with one category only. I would not recommend tagging talk pages so we can use a talk category to recent changes on talk pages. Instead, I would recommend that you populate your watch list iwith the articles you are really keen to monitor.
Alternatlively, we can ask the developers to do a watchlist-like function for every article in the workgroups "all articles" category. This would have the advantage of only showing the most recent edit for a particular page along with showing talk page changes too. I'll send them an e-mail to ask if that is even possible. Chris Day (Talk) 23:51, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Yes, this would be very useful. I think your wikiprograming will open the developers eyes to the problems of wikipedia's recent changes (aka how important this advantage will be over WP), as well as ways of improving your work. If we could only get all the Biological Workgroup articles and the Biological /drafts together.-Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:32, 16 February 2007 (CST)
I can't see an easy way of doing that other than using your own watchlist. Chris Day (Talk) 00:35, 16 February 2007 (CST)
AND WE NEED TO ADVERTISE YOUR WORK and spread the word. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:33, 16 February 2007 (CST)
You and Tom together are like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. err. Well Coool David Tribe 00:20, 16 February 2007 (CST)
I just hope we don't get shot at the end. Chris Day (Talk) 00:28, 16 February 2007 (CST)


Studies of RNAi illustrate that the final stages in RNA directed modifications to gene activity can occur by several different mechanisms (illustrated in the figure). They can involve blocks to RNA syntheis - that is, transcriptional gene silencing [TGS] - or silencing resulting from mRNA degradation [PTGS]. The methyation of DNA [1] or histones can be affected ( see PLoS for more discussion.)

This is what I have can you slide it in please David Tribe 03:59, 16 February 2007 (CST)

Yes i'll do it this weekend. You picked a good reference since Wasseneger was pretty much the first to show a definitive correlation between RNA and DNA. I'd like to link it to the centromere maintenance since it uses this mechanism to maintain the heterochromatic state. Chris Day (Talk) 04:06, 16 February 2007 (CST)


Hi, and sorry that I missed your earlier message at my talk page -- as with David Tribe's own message, it appears to have been lost in a recent flood of emails from all over the shop. Nevertheless, thanks for your kindness. :) -- David Still 01:31, 17 February 2007 (CST)

workgroup subcategory

Hey Chris, I was thinking that a lot of the controversy that we will see will be related to "content issues" that should be handled at the editorial level. We need a way for editors to "call for help" that is easy for them to do. That way, maybe they can settle something before it gets out of hand and people start to say things that they can't take back later, in other words, escalate the battle that might result in at least one good editor getting blocked. I am thinking particularly of the Scientific method article where two editors had a total disagreement about how the article should progress. They waited for an editor from their workgroup to intervene, but there really was no way to alert others in the workgroup and it was slow and probably inefficient.

I was thinking that perhaps another subcategory for the workgroups that identify articles that request help could be monitored by editors as they show up and they can go to help out. Maybe a template for the top of the talk page? What do you think? Matt Innis (Talk) 07:57, 19 February 2007 (CST)

What about the workgroup forums? Isn't that supposed to be an informal place to outline these discussions? That seems to be one significant difference with wikipedia that we are not restricted to only use the article talk pages. Chris Day (Talk) 10:20, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Your right. Especially after they are able to technically join the forums with the project. I wonder when that is going to happen? Matt Innis (Talk) 11:39, 19 February 2007 (CST)


Thanks for the heads up! I restored and answered on his talk page. Let me know if there are any more. Matt Innis (Talk) 11:35, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Matt, I have not been checking that hard. i think the confusion was due to the fact that Steve had made signifgicant changes before pasting into CZ. The assumption was that the one he originally pasted in was the WP version. Thus, there appeared to be very few changes. I think one way to check for that in the future is too look at the first version and see if it has WP redlink images and templates etc on the bottom. If not, there is a good chance it is significantly different. Chris Day (Talk) 11:43, 19 February 2007 (CST)
Sounds good, I'll keep an eye out for that. Meanwhile, if anyone else gets one zapped, just reassure them and send them my way. Also, there is nothing that says that can't just grab it from WP again. Although, I know how it feels to lose something that you worked all night on - even if it was just to change one sentence. When you finally get it right, you hate to lose it! Matt Innis (Talk) 12:14, 19 February 2007 (CST)

still want this?

[3] I protected it until you tell me otherwise Matt Innis (Talk) 15:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks for asking, I'd say delete it for now. i transfered it here since it was linked to some of the copy right templates. However, it might be better to link to their own web site than bothering to maintain an article. Chris Day (Talk) 15:29, 19 February 2007 (CST)

Okay, I'll delete it. Thanks!Matt Innis (Talk) 17:11, 19 February 2007 (CST)


There are some recent changes suggested at Biology/Draft about Anatomy versus Morphology (favouring Morphology). As far as I'm concerned its a minor issue either way, but the proponent is insistent, and I don't see why they cannot be included, unless they make confusion elsewhere. Have you any advice before another Approved version of Biology goes through? The is extensive discussion at the non-draft talk page. David Tribe 01:02, 20 February 2007 (CST)

We could consider naming the archive "Version1" rather than "Archive1" because it is feasible that we will have archives of talk pages that are not associtiated with the saved version. Matt Innis (Talk) 18:58, 20 February 2007 (CST)

So you think the talk page should be archived after every approved version? That might be a good idea, although this might result in very short archives? Maybe it is best to not have the archives linked to each version but have a visible marker to mark the points in the discussion that each archive occurred. Something along the lines of the following:
This would make it possible to associate the discussion with various versions without fragmenting the discussion into small packets. Chris Day (Talk) 19:13, 20 February 2007 (CST)
That would work! That way the history of the decisions will be related to the versions that are associated with them. I know that Biology probably won't change much, but I can see how a controversial subject such as acupuncture or pseudoscience could end up going through some long discussions without making significant changes to the articles. That would work. Matt Innis (Talk) 19:30, 20 February 2007 (CST)
I moved Talk:Biology to Talk:Biology Archive 1. So far so good? Matt Innis (Talk) 10:55, 21 February 2007 (CST)
It needs a slash. The right place is Talk:Biology/Archive 1. Thanks. -- ZachPruckowski (Talk) 11:33, 21 February 2007 (CST)
Okay, moved to Talk:Biology/Archive 1. Now okay? Matt Innis (Talk) 11:42, 21 February 2007 (CST)
So now we want to protect Talk:Biology/Archive 1 against edits, right? Matt Innis (Talk) 13:25, 21 February 2007 (CST)
Rob got it! Now do we want a link to Talk:Biology/Archive 1 from the Talk:Biology/Draft page? Matt Innis (Talk) 13:51, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks Chris!

Glad to be back! :-) Nancy Sculerati MD 14:28, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Elenchus on wheels

Perhaps you can help me. Its seems that an article I wrote, elenchus, has been deleted (although its talk page is still there). I think a vandal changed it to elenchus on wheels (I say 'changed' because this article suddenly appeared on my watchlist), which you have rightly nominated for deletion. Any idea? Damien Storey 03:23, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Found and restored I hopeGareth Leng 06:06, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Deleting redirection pages

A lot of redirection pages are useful, and we shouldn't delete them if doing so will break a link. If X links to Y which redirects to Z, then to delete Y will both make the link on X turn red (and possibly cause someone to write a new article titled Y) and possibly orphan Z. So...I hope you checked to make sure all the redirection pages you deleted were in fact orphans themselves. Or, you can make a redirection page an orphan by pointing X directly at Z. --Larry Sanger 08:15, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Good point, I'm pretty sure they are all orphan. I have to admit i did not check all of them for double redirect potential and could not since the articles they were redirecting to were already gone. Is there an easy way to check if they are an X to Z possability? Where the redirect is X and the Y is the page deleted in the BSD? Chris Day (Talk) 10:29, 21 February 2007 (CST)

Experimenting with archive box

Natural science button.png Natural science button.png Social science button.png Social science button.png Recreation button.png Recreation button.png Humanities button.png Arts button.png Applied arts button.png

Simple flask.png Simple flask.png Simple hand.png Simple hand.png Rec infinity.png Rec infinity.png

Re my accidental delete in Systems biology article

  • Chris: I definitely did not mean to delete the "Sources" section in Systems biology. But I did intend to edit them in due time, so I will leave them on the article Talk page where you put them, until I get a chance to update and reorganize. Thanks for catching my error. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:17, 22 February 2007 (CST)


I trust I've followed your archiving advice accurately. I did the minimal protection David Tribe 17:54, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks for picking up on my hint to protect the archive which Ill do now. David Tribe 22:56, 25 February 2007 (CST)
that Tito character (you know, the one with the nice flower pix) already dunnit. Yes this is a great system. I don't know how the archives work, but I expect you can go a long way with cutting and pasting of template code from existing articles. It would be good if your discussion was linked in or at the Approval process guidelines. all those little tricks you are adding are producing a neat CZ style. They're like macramé recreation for a botany prof I expect. Before I forget, congrats on your Biology montage finally making the BIGTIME! David Tribe 23:03, 25 February 2007 (CST)

CZ cleanup

I've got to call it quits. Hate to leave it to you, but I can help again tomorrow morning so you can leave some for me if you start going nuts;) Matt Innis (Talk) 22:35, 26 February 2007 (CST) Hate to be the same spoil sport but it is after 6 am, and I want to get some sleep before I march off again. I have done all names starting from the firstname N---Z. Robert Tito | Talk

U is done

the thing is done

Approval History

What do you think about setting a standard of doing approval history in reverse chronological order? It makes more sense to me to have the most recent approvals on top (since they'll be the most relevant to most people). -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 13:34, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Makes sense to me. What do you think of transcluding the approval history from a different page? I set it uo on HGT and the biology draft pages as an experiment. See my rationale on David Tribes talk page. Chris Day (Talk) 13:56, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Cosmetic reduction

Thanks, Chris! :-) Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 15:27, 28 February 2007 (CST)

No problem, although, I'm sure David isn't thanking us. :) Chris Day (Talk) 15:32, 28 February 2007 (CST)

image too small

Got it Chris! Thanks... so glad they got that image sizing tool fixed;) It looks so much better! -Matt Innis (Talk) 13:30, 5 March 2007 (CST)

draft cats

Hey Chris. Noticed the addition of categories to the draft page on Macromolecular chemistry. Is that something that we need to integrate into the approval process? Also, maybe we can include the archive box right, too. What ya think? -Matt Innis (Talk) 21:34, 5 March 2007 (CST)

I had been adding that category since we can then use recent changes on the category to track new edits to the draft pages in different work groups. It is clunky but the best we have at this time. Hopefully they will be able to set up work group watchlists in the future. As far as the archive box is concerned is there an archive yet? Do you think that page should be archived? If so I'd say go for it and we can start afresh on the new draft talk page. Chris Day (Talk) 22:23, 5 March 2007 (CST)


for your contribs

move SC Meth talk page to archive

Chris, I "moved" the talk page, but it doesn't look like it is working right yet. When I click on the Talk:Scientific method Archive link it just shows the Archive box talk page? What do I need to do differently? -Matt Innis (Talk) 11:37, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Hey, no problem. I logged off and back on again and it is working. May be a cache thing. I also noticed everything is a little slow today. Maybe they are adding the servers. Do chck and make sure everything is okay. Oh, I better protect the archive, huh. -Matt Innis (Talk) 12:27, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Categories deletion

Chris, can you point me to where on the forums these "other" categories were talked about. I'm having trouble finding it. Thanks! - Stephen Ewen 23:12, 6 March 2007 (CST)

I found it. Stephen Ewen 23:52, 6 March 2007 (CST)

workgroup page


Can you explain the logics of three smileys and H-A-AA-R on that page? They all seem buttons but the function is very unclear. There it no 'tiptool' to show info when you hover your mouse over it so an explanation of its function is vague by pictogram alone. Robert Tito | Talk 16:55, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Sorry, it's very much a work in progress. In fact, a mess. It is a navigation button experiment. Nothing live yet. The smilies are buttons. They would all be different for a live version but I just recylced the same button for now. The others are colour coded links with letter hyperlinks such as AA, for applied arts. Judging by the slowness it will not be useful at present. Chris Day (Talk) 17:26, 7 March 2007 (CST)


Wow, Chris, I really like the new checklist look! Talk about professional!!! We have arrived:) Good work. -Matt Innis (Talk) 07:38, 9 March 2007 (CST)

I agree, Chris-and its one more thing that gives a thoughtful and distinctive air to Citizendium. Thanks. Nancy Sculerati MD 07:49, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Scientific names

Hi, Chris! Well, I've decided to stick around a little longer, give it one more try and take a slightly more proactive approach. See the discussion on the forum. If you want to change things, maybe now is your chance. If you know anybody else who might be interested, let them know too. I hope the issue can be settled this time. --Jaap Winius 14:24, 12 March 2007 (CDT)


Chris, I imported pictures from Wikicommons for the vitalism page. They are the same ones that were on the WP article. Would you make sure I credited the copyrights properly. After the last debacle on the chiropractic page, I'm a little gunshy about what is legal. Thanks in advance! -Matt Innis (Talk) 09:28, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

I'll look but I'm not expert. Chris Day (Talk) 09:38, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
Matt this is beyond my limited knowledge. It all depends on the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case. It appears they are free and so should be fine but i'm not sure. The Freud one is even harder to figure out since it seems to be free in a limited set of countries. This suggests it is not truely free and might be an issue. One recommendation for uploading from wikicommons or wikipedia is to provide a backlink to the original version and all its documentation. See [this cow for an example of the "copied from" link i used for uploading. Chris Day (Talk) 09:48, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I made the link to Commons. If you aren't sure than at least it's nto blatantly importing copyrighted images. Let me know if you ever hear anything different. Thanks again! --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:35, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks -- and a question about top-level articles

Hi Chris, thanks for the welcome back.

I know that you've done a lot of work with the toplevel Biology entry -- hoping to do something like this with the toplevel Literature, though at the moment none of the other editors and authors in this workgroup have been active (some have not logged on for a month! -- I guess I was not the only one who took some time away). I have had some good help from a grad student who is in the History workgroup. Aside from recruiting more people, any advice you have on the Literature page? I'd value your thoughts.

Also, about images, do you know a good source for fully copyright-free images? I often use the National Library of Canada's picture archive, as they very explicity say so when images have expired copyrights or are otherwise PD, but they don't seem to have muchin the way of books. I was going to use some page images from book-scans at, but I see that these are from libraries in California and it's not clear to me that they would be fully re-licensable under GFDL . . . your expertise here, too, would be much appreciated!

Russell Potter 17:44, 13 March 2007 (CDT)

Main Page

That Logos too wide for my 30 cm screen David Tribe 17:08, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Which? I think you may have seen a transient big one? It was not intended to be that big. Chris Day (Talk) 17:11, 23 March 2007 (CDT)


Hi Chris, Thank you for your correction. Gary Giamboi (Talk) 15:50, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Delete an image?


How do I delete an image I uploaded? I want to delete Kris Herbst 14:56, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

You'll need to request that from a constable. They are the only ones that can delete or move pages. Chris Day (Talk) 15:01, 27 March 2007 (CDT)


You asked why I had re-sized a photo to fit well on a page rather than use the thumbnail technique. (I don't have a problem with your changing it to a thumbnail - that works and its simpler than what I did.) My technique of creating a version of the photo that fits on the page at 100% allowed me to enhance the sharpness of the photo slightly, compared to thumbnailing. Kris Herbst 16:41, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

Names of living things (and maybe genes too)

Thanks Chris- I put a post on the forums, perhaps you'll answer. I just noticed that "Wines" was being imported on recent changes, and it may be a great template- I don't know, I do think making our own graphics and charts is preferable. My e-mail address is on the forums, if you were to e-mail me photoshop or illustrator files, we might be able to work together. Anyway, I'll help you in any way that you would like me to, but I am so glad that you said "yes", and may I ask you to contact Jaap? I am sure you will do a great job. Thanks- Nancy Sculerati 12:19, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

What do you have in mind for templates? Something along the lines of David's cereals template? That has a small graphic in and it looks quite distinctive. I think David did take that from Wikipedia too and then customised the graphic, although I am not sure, i do remember helping him with the wiki code. If you have any other ideas I'll be happy play with them. And I'll e-mail Jaap. Chris Day (Talk) 12:48, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm thinking vertical column that has graphics. I'm just starting to think about it, but in field biology it's nice to have range maps and habitats. Let's think about vertebrates, first off. That (habitats and ranges) is not pertinent for domestic animals, but for domestic animals there might be other common attributes that would be worthwhile. The Wikipedia taxonomic box has the classification, which is nice. I just think that we should strive for our own look. So I copied the wikipedia taxo box below for cat, which -same species-has both wild and domestic (aqs well as ferral) populations. To my knowledge the same subspecies that got domesticated still lives wild (one of the few, if not only domestic animals to do so). Then I copied the taxo box for what I call the Coral Snake- which, although kept in captivity is predominantly a wild species, certainly not domesticated.

I do think, for vertebrates anyway, having a picture and having the whole classification scheme represented is useful. I think a place for range maps for those animals, like Micrurus fulvius, that have specific geographic ranges in the wild is helpful. Rather than a map-it could be a short description of geographic range. Other important aspects -like life span, or method of reproduction, might also get incorporated. I'm just brainstorming here, so feel free to shoot down anything, it just seems to me that having a long narrow box along the side of an article on vertebrates, such that the top had a picture-maybe of both adult and infant, the scientifc classification, and conventional places for lifespan, habitat, range, etc so that if a reader wanted the quick low-down on an animal it would be there in the column, which would be in the form of a graphic. Every living thing that has been classified would have the classification part, but depending on the specific type of organism, the rest would be modified accordingly- so for vascular plants a certain way, protozoa, a certain way, bacteria a certain way, etc. Nancy Sculerati 14:28, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Chris, somehow I have (it must have been me) placed your talk page in the Category Domestic Animals.I assure you this is not some underhanded attempt at name-calling, could I recognize the #*!!! code, I'd get rid of it, but I've scanned through twice and I don't see it. sorry- Nancy Sculerati 16:17, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Its coded in the taxo box itself. I'm surprised i didn't get catogorisedas a reptile too.
OK, now i am on the same page, I'd call this a taxonomy template. David's cereal template I'd call a navigation template. You'll note that in wikipedia these things are everywhere. They are very popular for country's, towns, universities and schools too and in that context known as information templates. My only prolem with them is they can get very big so we do need to think clearly about what info we want in the template and what will be better served in the text. There have been many discussion in wikipedia so I will go and track them down and distill them into the pertinent points. Chris Day (Talk) 16:30, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Now that you know what I mean by templates, and of course the namimg system is an entirely seperate deal, I'll remove both templates from your page and hope for the best. Nancy Sculerati 17:15, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Behold, no longer a domesticated cat. But more seriously, so when you mention the photoshop and illustrator files, are you thinking along the lines of range maps along the lines of the pocket bird books? For plants, I think the USDA might have a good collection that we could use due to public access. Chris Day (Talk) 17:34, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

yes, I am, as one band of the template. And for the template's other bands, I'm thinking that the classification is good- but so would be Number of Chromosomes,Even things like ploidy (some salamanders are triploid etc, besides plants, of course)) Life span (range, average), I'm forgetting the proper terms but-viviparous, oviparous etc average gestation (incubation) clutch size litter size etc. I don't know the right plant reproduction criteria but I'm sure you do. In other words, not outrageous trivia (like all the common names, which could be linked -but not in the column) but the basic information that defines the species or is characteristic of it as a species. The article itself could then be an essay. I think we might all learn something from constructing these templates, I don't know if that stuff has been collected in a clear and simple fashion that is easily browsable for the species in any numbers. If it has, it makes our work easier, if it hasn't, it makes our work more interesting - and more valuable. Nancy Sculerati 17:45, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Image tags

Mr. Day, thanks for your message. I will take the existing tags into consideration next time I upload the image. Cheers! Soso Mamukelashvili 12:59, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Actually, your one is better since it is the png version and translucent. I just wanted to alert you to the fact that some were already present. I think when the originals were uploaded it was not possible to go with the png format. Also remember to chop off the svg tag when you convert the SVG files too a png. Chris Day (Talk) 13:09, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

Regarding title change for Life article

Chris: Nancy feels strongly about having the phrase 'living systems' somewhere in the title of the Life article. I suggested, among others:

  • Life (principles of living systems)

Nancy says that might be okay with her, but to run it by you, David and Gareth.

I feel strongly about keeping "Life" as the primary title, but have no objections to a parenthetical qualifier.

Could you go with "Life (principles of living systems)"? If so, would you consider nominating the article for approval. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 16:01, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

How about Life and living systems ? Chris Day (Talk) 16:32, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
Chris, trying to imagine what various readers might think in regard to and. Considered Life (living systems), but like the implication of "principles" to be found in this article. Nancy seem to go for that. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:18, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
Just trying to think of something without brackets. But i don't have a problem with "Life (principles of living systems)". It certainly fits the article and that should be our primary concern. Chris Day (Talk) 21:27, 30 March 2007 (CDT)
Thanks, Chris. And for all your contributions throughout this 'that's life' process.
I am eager to move on to other topics and let this one incubate in Life (principles of living systems)/draft. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:33, 30 March 2007 (CDT)


Chris, I have been pretty much the sole author of Dog (not that I'm happy about that!). Could you look it over for approval? If it is not ready for approval- could you let me know wht's needed? Thanks Nancy Sculerati 12:42, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Sure I'll look with my untrained eye. I know nothing about dogs (relatively speaking) so maybe I am your audience? I might not know what is missing though. Chris Day (Talk) 13:00, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks-look at it as a biologist, realizing it is lay level and we are fine. Someday, we may have super specialists to approve but let's work with what we've got. Nancy Sculerati 13:03, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

workgroup introduction template

What do you think? Would this be useful to add to people's talk pages? Any advice? Please feel free to change it all around. I was thinking it might be useful to put it on people's talk pages to teach them about workgroups. Is it too much? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:16, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Setting Wikipedia flag

I have set the WP flag for you in Jewish views of Jesus. You have to accompany it with an edit of some sort. I usually add a carriage return between paragraphs, which has no effect on the visible article. Petréa Mitchell 13:14, 1 April 2007 (CDT)

Naming policy white paper

Hi Chris, Earlier, when I was having technical problems editing CZ pages, I left you a private message on the forum. Just wondering if you had seen it. --Jaap Winius 15:33, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

Macromolecular Chemistry

Chris, this article really needed a Chemistry editor that was not involved in writing for approval. At this point, we have a second Chemistry editor-who is also involved in writing. So approval is going to take a third. Let's all work together, maybe we can recruit more Chemistry editors for the workgroup. Nancy Sculerati 11:04, 3 April 2007 (CDT)


Chris, after I approved, we later determined that both macromolecular chemistry and physical chemistry (and there is one more) needed two more chemistry editors to be approved (Nancy and Gareth didn't count), so we had to back track until others come along. Steve actually did the reversion. I'll see what happened to the talk pages and see what I can do to restore them. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:44, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

OK, that makes sense, in that case we need to restore the talk page histories and delete the draft articles. It certainly confused me and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Chris Day (Talk) 13:51, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
Also, Nancy's message above now makes more sense. Chris Day (Talk) 13:52, 3 April 2007 (CDT)
  1. Wassenegger M et al. (1994) RNA-directed de novo methylation of genomic sequences in plants. Cell. 76:567-76. PMID 8313476