User talk:Chris Day/Archive 2

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

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)

Got this Jaap, will reply soon. Chris Day (Talk) 13:57, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Um, you haven't forgotten this, have you? --Jaap Winius 18:13, 26 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)

Chemisty

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)
See me on Steve's page --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:12, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Looks good, huh:)

I like it to :) Thanks to you! --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:29, 3 April 2007 (CDT)

Too lonely, I need HELP !!!!

Lonely, I need HELP !!! Economics is a vast topic, it is "too much sand for my little truck..." J. R. Campos 08:30, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

That's exactly what I was thinking! Unfortunately, however, I am next to useless on the topic. Hopefully more people will migrate from wikipedia once they see there is a chance to do some real work here. Assuming there are good people in wikipedia? Certainly for the sciences there are some very good contributors. Chris Day (Talk) 09:11, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

Hey Chris

Anyway to make an Article for Deletion tag can show up on the Workgroup Box for the workgroup responsible for that article. Maybe along with the checklisted articles (or something better). That way, when someone places it in the category articles for deletion, the editors can take a look and see if it should be deleted. What do you think? --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:39, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Hey Matt, which of these template categories Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests or Category:Articles_for_deletion are you thinking of? Not sure if it is possible but will think about it. Chris Day (Talk) 23:17, 5 April 2007 (CDT)
Category:Articles_for deletion. You can doit, I no u can:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:36, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks

Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep my opinion of it to myself... --Peter J. King  Talk  11:57, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Peter! --Mike Johnson 14:01, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

I will keep an eye on this person Chris, as soon as my maintenance is done I will check his application and see what the status is. Robert Tito |  Talk  19:36, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for looking into it. Chris Day (Talk) 19:43, 7 April 2007 (CDT) no prob at all, the account has not be made yet, but without applic I cant procedd and on this disk I run from I dont have the correct software running, within 4 hours the account is done - if all is in order that is. Robert Tito |  Talk 

read

the answer please and comment. Rob

Finally an author.

Regarding your comment on my talk page: Yeah, I know I may have seemed a bit impatient while waiting. Mostly it was a certain sense of insecurity. Some part of me figured, as I've mentioned before, that with my utter lack of credentials and notable works, I might not be "up to snuff" for Citizendium. Now that I'm in, well, I'm hoping to kick back and write a few articles in the next little while. I look forward to working with you in future, soon as I write a biography that's up to standard, anyway.

Yes, I find it confusing

Re your comment at Template talk:checklist: yes, I find it confusing how you've redirected your user page to your talk page. I was under the impression that each user was required to put their biography on their user page; maybe I'm wrong about that. In any case, I tried a number of times to find your biography and didn't find it. One thing that adds to the confusion is that your last name is sometimes spelled with a capital letter, sometimes lowercase. So of course I assumed I'd typed the wrong one and tried the other one. After a number of tries I gave up. I didn't find your publications list. I wasn't looking for a publications list; I was looking for a user page and/or a biography. I suppose your publications list serves as your biography. If it were posted on your user page, that would be obvious. If the link from your talk page were labelled "my biography" it would be obvious to users who noticed that link. Your explanation that you find it easier to maintain one page rather than two doesn't hold water, since your publications list is on a separate page anyway: why not make that your user page? I think it's less confusing if everybody follows the same format. Especially since you're an editor, readers will be wanting to see your biography (or user page or publications list) to see who is giving authority to various articles, so it's better to have that information easily available in a standard place, in my opinion. Also probably better not to direct readers to your talk page, which will contain all sorts of stuff that doesn't really need to be read by people who are just looking up information in the articles and not participating in writing them. Anyway, that's my opinion. --Catherine Woodgold 10:32, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

I'd have to say I agree.. the "norm" is a Bio page at User:, and the talk page is strictly for discussions I'd think. Wasn't this one of the things you agreed to when you joined, that you would create a bio? --Eric M Gearhart 11:50, 8 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi Eric and Catherine, not sure if your still following this but user name and bio are now be in a more user friendly format. Chris Day (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
The only thing I'd ae to say about that is that you might want to put something at the top of the list, to the effect of "These are books I co-wrote" or something like that. I found myself reading through the list to find "Day, CD" trying to figure out what this was a list of :) Eric M Gearhart
I'm glad to see you have a conventional user page now. Less confusing that way for everyone, I think. Thanks. --Catherine Woodgold 21:24, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

Check it

Chris, check your user page and talk page and make sure they work the way they aresupposed to. The redirects from user to user talk may be confusing, so make sure that's the way you want them. --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:52, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Matt this looks good. So I still log in as Chris day? One thing I was hoping was to actually have a new User I.D. so that my edits will show up in the histories as Chris Day too. Or is that not possible? I'd be fine just starting a new account too. Which ever is easier. Thanks for the help. Chris Day (Talk) 13:01, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Okay, Chris, check you email for the password to your new user page and let me know if it works right. --Matt Innis (Talk) 17:23, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

After I'm sure you can get in under Chris Day, I'll block the Chris day account. Then we should be set. --Matt Innis (Talk) 17:49, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Sounds great. Will I get an e-mail with intructions for creating passwords etc.? I'm sorry for wasting your time on this Matt. Chris Day (Talk) 19:36, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Hey, no problem Chris, after all you do for me!!!! You can change your password under preferences at the top. Did you get the email with the new password? --Matt Innis (Talk) 08:41, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Excellent, I'm in. Can you hold off blocking the old account so I can transfer my watchlist etc. I'll let you know when I'm done. Thanks. Chris Day (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

You bet, just leave me a note on my talk. Have Fun!!! --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:10, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I'll put a block on User:Chris day but will leave the redirects in place so all your previous edits on other talk pages won't show red and will redirect here. One day, we can delete the pages when you feel it won't affect anything too much. Let me know if anything goes wrong when I block:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:30, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I moved you archives and delted the original. I also blocked your username, but think it blocked your IP address, too, so I unblocked until I find out for sure. If anything goes wrong and you cannot get in, email me at dminnis@gmail.com! --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:53, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

self-organization in life

chris, david tribe and i tried to straighten out the first sections of Life this morning, there were edit conflicts and restorations and ensuing confusion, last night between me , Rob, and Anthony- all of us trying to work more or less at the same time. Anthony did major restoration last night, late, and then David, and finally me and David then me. David will (tonight) make sure that the chemists' corrections all got incorporated, and I think that things are reasonably readable and accurate now, but in going through the article, I come to real trouble in self -organization -having to do with genomes and computers. It's not something I understand well enough to do a good job on,however, I do think you could. Currently I think it's wrong. Could you look at the talk page please? Nancy Sculerati 13:50, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Call Button

Hey Chris, is there any way to put a button on the workgroup box that would allow us to send the same email to all the editors? Basically, if somebody wants to find an editor to approve an article, he could click the button and write all of them a note at the same time... you know what I mean? --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:11, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Probably, but I don't have access to mediawiki code. You need to ask the developers (plus I am in no way familiar with programming. Everything I do is just muddling along).
With regard to your previous question track changes for deletion template. I'm not sure i understand what you want? It sounds like you want the page names to automatically appear in the workgroup template, in the same way they automatically appear in the category page. Is this right? If so I'm not sure I know a way around this? It would be quite easy to establish a new 'workgroup articles deletion category' such that you could see which articles were being considered for deletion, but this would require you to click a link, as for the recent changes. Keep coming with these ideas. We should create a todo list on the workgroups talk page. We may not have the technical skills available now but it may be easier in the future. Chris Day (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
You are the programmer!:) Yes, you haev the deletion thing right. Basically to make everything go back and focus on the workgroup editors. Maybe something like the speedydelete only it asks for the workgroup and then it will put it on the workgroup home page?(Somewhere - anywhere that we can get their attention) That way, as an editor, all I have to do is monitor my workgroup and I will know if someone is trying to delete one of my articles (or if they need my input). Then if we had a call button, that would be even more fun:) Where can we put these ideas? --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:03, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Would you liek a CZ cape to go with your bat phone? But more to the point, there is no way i can do that with my remedial efforts, sorry. I'll set up a to do/idea list on the talk page. Maybe someone else will find interest/time to persue it. Chris Day (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Hey, that's a start, thanks, Robin. --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:32, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

biology workgroup recent changes for drafts/approved

I edited Life/draft and didn't see it show up in the approve/draft recent change list for biology. Any ideas? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 21:55, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Almost certainly does not have the draft category appended to it. Chris Day (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Is there policy for draft categories and has this been considered in the "one-touch" proposed approval process? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 22:12, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
I don't get the question exactly--? --Larry Sanger 22:29, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
One can track recent changes in all biology articles by using "related changes" on the category page Category:Biology Workgroup articles, however, this only tracks the main page of any article. This is fine for all the unapproved articles but the approved articles rarely changes except after a new approval. Consequently it becomes necessary to track changes to the draft article since that is where all the action occurs. To do this we need the draft articles to have their own category (Category:Biology_Workgroup_Draft). Related changes on that page will allow a window onto the edits to the draft versions o approved article. Therefore, the approval process should include instructions for commenting out the categories on the draft page AND adding the [[:Category:{{{Group}}}_Workgroup_Draft]] category. Chris Day (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Chris, I added that to the instructions for article approval. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:33, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
Excellent Matt, thanks. I have just added some info on the usage of the less often used Approval template fields of group2 and abc.
Do you have any opinion on keeping the approval edits seperate from the talk edits. If you look at Talk:Biology/Draft you will see that the approval notes are on a transcluded page. I think this may be useful since all the approval edits are seperated from the talk page edits and readily reviewed using the history. If they are mixed in with the talk page edits they will be harder to review if it becomes necessary at a later date. If you like this plan we should have a discussion and add it to the approval process. In fact, there is no reason why this cannot be a standard feature on all talk pages even before they become approved. I would welcome your input here. Chris Day (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2007 (CDT)
Yes, definitely an improvement. We need to do the same thing for Dog and maybe include the conversation concerning the mechanics. This is a good idea. How hard is it and can we write it up? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:13, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
Also, is there a reason we aren't using that neat Article Checklist template on all articles? --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:17, 14 April 2007 (CDT)
One more thing:) Did you know this sanbox is showing up here? --Matt Innis (Talk) 21:52, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi Matt, there is a problem with my version of the checklist. It works on my computer and browser set up but not on Larry Sangers. He is using I.E. and PC. Unfortunately i have not been able to replicate the problem that Larry sees so it is very hard for me to debug. For the pertinent conversations see these talk sections. User_talk:Larry_Sanger/Archive_3#checklist and here User_talk:Larry_Sanger#checklist.

I'm using IE on a PC as well. I'll check the linked discussion. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:03, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
I removed the checklist templates from my two sandboxes (re: the sandboxes being in the category as discussed below). Feel free to revert that edit so you can check if the problem is present for you too. Chris Day (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I have checked it on my laptop and PC with IE and 800x600 and 1280x800 with the same overlap on each. The overlap that I see is about 2/3 the way down the outer box (not the article checklist box). There is no overlap of the Article checklist box and archive box at all. The contents box overlaps this bottom third of the template box. If you choose to hide the content box, the text from the talk page migrates up into the bottom third of the template box. Could it be that the background picture is what is determining the size of the box and we can cut the bottom off. Or if we take the border transparent? I don't know if we can do that with these things:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:52, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
I tried a few things myself (just changed numbers in your template and the only thing that didn't show as overlap was making the border transparent and that was not as good looking. But see what you think. Maybe you know a few more tricks. --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:07, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

With respect to the seperate page for approval discussion it is very simple to implement and I can write up a proceedure. I have not implemented it globably since I have had very little feedback. In fact, yours here is the first. I was not sure if that was a positive or negative sign.

Let me be the first to endorse it then, provided it is not too hard to put together. It could even be put into a template format that we can plop on a page at the same time as the checklist can't it? --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:03, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually it is in a template form already. See the biology and life talke pages that use {{Approval history}}. Chris Day (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2007 (CDT)
Of course it is!:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:52, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

I did know my sandbox was in the category. Do you think it i a problem? i can deactivate it except for hen i am actively trouble shooting. I'll switch it off right now. Chris Day (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Don't worry about, it is fine with me. I figured you had a reason, that's why I didn't remark it out myself. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:03, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Recent Changes

Chris I think you put together the recent changes box in the workgroups. I just noticed that Life Draft changes don't appear there. What do you think?

David Tribe 05:30, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

You need to look at the recent changes under the approved/draft section. Unfortunately it is impossible to get all recent changes in the same list using the related changes feature. ideally we need to have workgroup watchlists. The advantage of a watchlist is that talk pages will also appear on the list of changes, as well as us only having to monitor one list. In addition, only the most recent changes for any page will be seen rather than all recent changes. The advantage of only seeing the most recent change is the list does not get dominated by many minor changes to one particular article. Maybe you could chime in on this thread in the forums: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,591.0.html It seems to have been missed or ignored by the developers. Chris Day (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Recently uploaded image(s)

Hi Chris. Do me a favor and put some licensing data at the walk/crawl images. See Images Help—Copyrights for help. Thanks! — Stephen Ewen 19:01, 14 April 2007 (CDT) Chris. I am putting both in Infant growth and development. This boy (full term infant?) was how old on the day of the pictures? thanks, Nancy Sculerati 19:15, 14 April 2007 (CDT)

Version 1.1 of life

I have put Life/Draft V 1.1 up for approval. Your views on that are welcome, cheers D David Tribe 19:31, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Progress is good

Thats good Chris: with positive support such as you just gave well be able to roll forward. Thanks

d

Template help

Chris, thanks a lot for your help with this. :-) ----Stephen Ewen 00:38, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

No problem. Checkout the Template:Acronymlist (which should be a protected template!). Hopefully you can see how it is easy to add any acronym to the list as well as customise the output for each one. Hope this helps ease the way for you. Chris Day (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Actually, your {{acronym}} and {{soup}} templates will need to be protected too. The last thing you want is pranksters editing the official messages from the constables. Chris Day (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Protected. Also, may I ask a question? With {{wpcheckbox}} I tired to get it to include a heading, but when it is placed on a talk page and one edits the resulting section there...it edits the template! Any way to make it not do that? Stephen Ewen 03:03, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Nothing that i know of. I have made a few suggestions at the template page. Chris Day (talk) 03:24, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

screenshots

Chris, this is what I see: [1],[2],[3].

There is still the same overlap, but I like the approval template attached to it!!! Keep going, you're getting closer;) I can do this anytime, so just ask and I'll zip you over a screenshot. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:07, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Interesting, not at all like i expected. I told Larry i didn't need screen shots but that was probably a mistake. I'll keep going :) Thanks for the help. Chris Day (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Approval and style stuff

Yes, I do approve of you much appreciated tools. The shorter name is good and once people get used to the system they'll like it. Thanks. On another topic I'm thinking that we should have a uniform box color style at CZ. light-blue for CZ article summary statements. light yellow for quotes from other sources, as "just happened' in Life? Was that what you were thinking?. WHere do we take this next, the forums or just put it in the style guides? The regular readers would soon subconsiously learn it as a rule of meaning David Tribe 15:51, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

i think the forums might be a good place to introduce it. But I wouldn't wait for a solid decision, it is better to implement the 'rule' on a subset of pages. I think people get the idea better when they can see the principle in action. Descriptions on forums don't usually attract much attention. Also, as we implement this on a subset of articles we will be able to fine tune it more readily. We can easily have a 'quote template' and 'summary template'. This is a huge advantage to keep everything consistent and styles can be changed easily at a later date. I like your thinking. Chris Day (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Before I had a chance to read the comment above (and I agree with it) it happened I drafted an entry so : Citizendium:Manual of Style . We could just leave it there without comment to mellow with time? They could be the starting point of templates too. David Tribe 17:01, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
Agreed, a multipronged attack to derail the doubters :) Chris Day (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

I am no doubter, but a great admirer. Still could you try a lighter blue? Nancy Sculerati 17:47, 17 April 2007 (CDT) CCFFFF

You guys are awesome. And I'd like to see what a lighter blue looks like, too. --Matt Innis (Talk) 18:08, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

In the examples below i ran with the lightblue and modified tha saturation and brightness of the colour to give some other choices. Obviously other parameters can be changed too but see how you like these. Chris Day (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2007 (CDT)

This is a trick isn't it:) Okay, I say the 95% bright and 20% saturated. That is probably what we already have! --Matt Innis (Talk) 19:39, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
No trick. We have the blue at the top left. Saturation drops off to the right and brightness increases going down. Chris Day (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2007 (CDT)
brightness Saturation
25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 25%
90% bright Lightblue
See Life for a complete explanation
#B8DAE5
See Life for a complete explanation
#C3DDE5
See Life for a complete explanation
#CFE0E5
See Life for a complete explanation
#DAE3E5
See Life for a complete explanation
#ADD8E6 aka lightblue
See Life for a complete explanation
95% bright #B6E3F2
See Life for a complete explanation
#C2E6F2
See Life for a complete explanation
#CEE9F2
See Life for a complete explanation
#DAECF2
See Life for a complete explanation
#E6EFF2
See Life for a complete explanation
#B6E3F2
See Life for a complete explanation
100% bright BFEFFF
See Life for a complete explanation
#CCF2FF
See Life for a complete explanation
#D9F5FF
See Life for a complete explanation
#E5F9FF
See Life for a complete explanation
#F2FCFF
See Life for a complete explanation
#BFEFFF
See Life for a complete explanation

ToApprove and AddDays

I'm working to make as many parameters of the ToApprove template as simple as possible. An editor suggested they'd be more willing to use it if it could be done more simply. Currently I've managed to partially get the date parameter optional. I'm having the following issues:

1) I'm worried that the date might move back three days every time someone edits the talk page. I can't get {{AddDays}} to subst: within the #if. Ideas?

2) We need to handle month/year wraparound in {{AddDays}}. That's a long and painful process. Do you have ideas to make it go faster than a pile of #if's?

Also, any ideas for dealing with getting the "url" parameter to have a default value? I'm going to work on that next. Any ideas you have would be much appreciated.--ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 09:41, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Haha, forget about (2). Found an easy way once I stopped trying to do 4 things at once... -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 10:00, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
Hi Zach, i think it is a good idea to get this process simplfied. I'll look at it latter once you've finished tinkering. Did you check out Nancy's talk page history? Its a mess, completley corrupted with all edits being on the same day and time. I can't imagine what happened but we don't want that happing on our article pages too. Did you track down the problem there? Chris Day (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
I've set Jason and Greg to looking at it. It's a problem in the database that only they have access to, so only they can fix. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 10:46, 19 April 2007 (CDT)

Life

Dear Fellow Biology Editor. The article Life is in danger of being left with out significant bug fixes for another indefinite interval if we continue as we are doing. All the scientific issues and punctuation issues are resolved but the constable is still not assured of editor support for the bug fix. Would you kindly make no more additions except copyedits and place a note indication your support near the approval template so we can move on. In the event that V 1.1 is approved ignore this request. David Tribe 00:10, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks Chris yet again. If we work together in teams we can eventually get this legal stuff under control

David Tribe 04:08, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Details, details... :-)

Chris, do me a favor a revisit Image:Approvedhistorical.png and put some licensing data there. Thanks. Stephen Ewen 21:50, 22 April 2007 (CDT)

Images made to order

My students are using this http://hugin.ethz.ch/wuthrich/software/molmol/

It makes great protien diagrams. David Tribe 06:22, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Approval Style sheets

Chris on the forums now somebody has come up with a nice template I think that could be on the actual article, we could put the checklist template on the discussion. Want to work on the style sheet? Anything you'd like me to do? Nancy Sculerati 15:44, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Hi Nancy, i saw it a while ago, in a different thread, I think. Are you referring to the approval template that is part of the page layout discussed in the link below?
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,841.msg6441.html#msg6441
With respect to the checklist template, it still has the bug with Internet Explorer on PC computers. See the screen shots from Matt, User_talk:Chris_Day#screenshots. It looks fine on my computer on all browsers. Not sure how to fix it if i can't see the messed up out put. Until that bug is fixed the new template will have to be on hold. Unless someone else can figure out the problem. I have to admit i have not tried too hard.
I'll mention the my experimental checklist to Frederick and see if he can fix it. Chris Day (talk) 16:03, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Approval template

Chris, thanks for helping out with the wiki code in Template:Approved. Is there some reason NOT to use the other graphic (the smaller .jpg)? It will load faster than if we use a large .png file and force it to be shrunken each time. That can be a performance boost if we start getting tons of traffic on the site. Unless you object or there's some law against it, I'd like to change it back to the smaller .jpg file with no resizing. If it has to be a .png file instead, I can convert it. Let me know. Thanks in advance.Pat Palmer 22:41, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

I had not thought of that. Just thinking it would easier to keep track of one fig only. I had not thought about it in terms of performance. Chris Day (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Oh oh. The template is broken. I think you might want to revert to an earlier version. Check out an approved article such as Biology and you'll see what I mean. I would just go back to what I had before you changed it, for now. Trying to put 3 levels of tests in there is too difficult, code-wise. If you really need it, let me work on that some morning when I'm rested. Or you can. I was terrified I'd break it just with 2 if statements in there.Pat Palmer 22:52, 26 April 2007 (CDT)
Still experimenting with the if statements. messed up first, seconf and third time. Fourth time lucky ? Chris Day (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2007 (CDT)

Chris, to literally get us all on the same page would you kindly take a look at:http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Announcements under today's date? Perhaps you can link some idea to it. I know I have missed some of the discussion in the Forums, if you know what- could you add it? My intention is not to be the Big Boss here (or any other b word) but to try to get things done. That's why I'm pointing this out to you, because you are good at this. (As is Rob, Pat, etc.) regards, Nancy Sculerati 11:41, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Wheat

I have made the change as requested. The article was NOT approved by Agriculture, so I think the change is an error. For now, look at the template it works. We can revrt it. David Tribe 08:20, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Now I see the difference. Maybe we should hold off then. I was thinking since it was in the workgroup it should also be one of its approved, however, it makes much more sense to only idenitfy the biologists in approval since a real agriculturalist may well have legitimate objections based on the ignorance in the biology workgroup. In short, I agree with you here. Chris Day (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
While you are here, could you check out the changes I made to the {{Approval}} {{Approved}} and {{ToApprove}} templates wearing your constables hat. Are these the feature you were hoping for when asking for the ducks in a row? Chris Day (talk) 08:25, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
The toapprove template has changes that are news to me. I'm not sure the four editors part is an accurate assessment of our rules. I'm also thinking the link you provided for Approval is not the one you wanted. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:46, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Matt, the changes I made were reguested by Rob Tito. See section below. I thought that the constables had discussed this although I admit I had not seen it anywhere. I'm not sure what link you are referring to, possibly the e-mail link? That was also reguested by Rob. Obviously we can change things if this has not been agreed to by the constables. May be this is a good kick start for you to get these templates the way you want them. For example, getting editors to add their name to the tremplate as they approve will help you get the ducks in a line'. Chris Day (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

ToApprove

Hi Chris--I noticed this line: "fourth editor will activate the email option to inform constables that the article is ready to be processed." What does this mean? --Larry Sanger 08:29, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

I think it's right. I guess we just have to suck it and see. David Tribe 08:30, 27 April 2007 (CDT)
Robert Tito requested the option, I put it in but I was never directed to any discussion on this. May be it is his idea? See his talk page and also the Talk:Tux/Gallery page for our conversations. Feel free to revert it. Chris Day (talk) 08:32, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

a fourth editor after adding her/his name can ask the constabulary to finalize the approval process (be it the date for approval or merely because 4 editors want that version approved). It is an aid to facilitate the ease of working of the approval process. nothing to it. Robert Tito |  Talk 

I brought this over to the ToApprove template discussion page. --Matt Innis (Talk) 13:55, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Template help?

Chris, I am trying my hand at templates. I created {{Bypermission-noreuse}} but I cannot figure out why images tagged with it are showing up at Category:License_tags. Any idea? Stephen Ewen 00:20, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Ah! I figured it out ! Stephen Ewen 00:40, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Image:Florence_Nightingale_3.jpg

Chris, do me a favor and give Ms. Nightingale a license. :-) Stephen Ewen 23:21, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Actually i have no idea where it came from. i just adjusted the contrast and brightness. Is it from Nancy? Chris Day (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
Actually from Eric, i fixed it. Chris Day (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

copyright templates

Thanks for the compliment, but Steve Ewen gets most of the credit - I just copied what he had already done.

Is there a way to bump the images up to the top of the template box? They looked fine centered in the original, but with a longer license description, they look a little awkward now. I think moving them upward will fix this, but I don't know how to test and find out. Please help? --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:44, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, like that. But it doesn't look any better does it? I think I see what you did, so I'll play with it a bit. Thanks much. --Joe Quick (Talk) 23:48, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
You could add some breaks at the top to push it downa bit. Chris Day (talk) 23:48, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

That definitely helps. Is it possible to push the small text left to span the whole box and fill the space beneath the images if we leave the images at the top? --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:01, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Never mind. I figured it out. It was actually the proportions that were throwing me off and not the placement. The top image wasn't quite wide enough for four of the circles to fit underneath so it looked a little off. This one's an easy fix. Thanks for the help and sorry for the bother. --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:10, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
Already pushed the small text on one to the left. Like it? Chris Day (talk) 00:10, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I fixed the proportions on that one. Dunno which way is better. Do you like Template:Cc-by-2.0 or Template:Cc-by-2.5? --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:17, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
I think i prefer this one Template:Cc-by-1.0. But all three are fine. Chris Day (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I put a note of Steve's talk page to see what his preferences are. My vote is definitely either 1.0 or 2.0, but I won't make any more changes until I see what Steve has to say. Thanks again for the help. --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:24, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

LOL. And then I come along with a pref for 2.5! Seems like we'd all be happiest with the 1.0 version. That's my second fav. Stephen Ewen 00:34, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Contraception

Chris, after Peter's changes, I "reset" the talk page of the article, noting "new start". Please see [4] Nancy Sculerati 13:47, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

WHO has no problem with abstinence. by the way is your link suppoed to be pointing to Talk:Contraception (medical methods)? Chris Day (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

no. you are missing the point, both ways. click the link and see. Nancy Sculerati 16:15, 3 May 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, at first i was confused, since Peter's page has nothing of relevance but when I looked in the history I now realise you were probably referring to this deleted material. I still don't understand why rape should be in an article on contraception that mentions abstinance. Given you are currently working on herpes, will you mention that rape victims can contract this disease? Clearly it is the case, and a terrible thing, but is it relevant to the article? I wonder if your personal experiences in Nigeria are colouring your perspective here? Again, WHO discusses abstinance with respect to contraception, so why would we contrive to write an article that only discusses medical intervention. Doesn't this just avoid, or delay, the discussion and create an overly specialised article rather than a more general one? Chris Day (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Chris, you are more than welcome to write, or contribute to the already begun, "general" article Contraception. I have left a similar message on stephen Ewen's talk age. My interest is in the health science articles at this time, that's all. I'll help with that other article when I can, if you'd like. I don't see why I can't write Contraception (medical methods), which is far from finished, and - just with including its well defined subject matter, is a very large subject to convey in one article without including topics that are clearly NOT in its purview. It is true that there are religious and political groups who believe that the information in that article should be suppressed, but that is not a reasonable position for Citizendium to take. If that is not your position, then what is the problem here? Nancy Sculerati 09:03, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Sorry for this late reply. I now see a bit more how you are planning to distribute articles headed by contraception. However, the focus of my post above (and previous comments) was your insistence on connecting abstinance, from a contraceptive perspective, with pregnancy from rape. This seems to be a tenuous link driven by your own experiences and seems to be against the expectations of neutrality at CZ. Abstinance is a recognised form of birth control and to comment that this is somehow not useful because a woman might get raped is just out of left field. Would you say the same to a couple that only wants to use condoms when discussing contraception? i.e. "you have a 5% chance of an unitended pregnancy using condoms but much higher chance if you live in a war zone." Chris Day (talk) 10:31, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
I don't know why you are still arguing this point? The original article (before new start) stated that -as an absolute- abstinence is the first line of contraception, and set up the article in a way that was very restrictive in terms of audience and the provision of information, in my opinion. I have done what I have time to do -so far- in structuring and expanding articles to be neutral and informative, There is still a whole article on Contraception which remains practically unworked on, if you would like to work on it, having a great interest in the topic, please do.I will get to it after I do reasearch for the others, but my knowlege of the history of contraception and the various religious attitudes towards contraception is so scanty that I am concentrating on reading the peer reviewed literature from medline and the on-line medical textbooks I have available to me on Natural Family Planning, Sterilization (surgical) and Contraception (medical methods). At this point, all of the three articles are missing major stuff, and for me to write about them I have to finally re-review all that ovulation hormonal stuff Ovulatory cycle and once I do, I can maybe add to the main article in a sensible way. The subarticles are really my own interest, at the moment and the only things I have real knowlege about. So far, this is nothing about rape in any of them. I don't understand what you want changed? Nancy Sculerati 11:33, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm not arguing any point but presenting a counter point to you original comments. They are certainly moot as I read the current state of the articles. Chris Day (talk) 11:54, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Natural Family Planning

I just started this, and hope you will look it over. Please also look at the last message above, which you may have missed. I think the NFP article will go into abstinence in detail, and when we get to it, the main article Contraception can cover the whole deal- contraception in human society, the history, religious issues, etc etc. Is that agreeable? :)Nancy Sculerati 13:09, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Template:Information

Could you take a look at Template:Information? I tried to fix a bug and couldn't figure it out. See Image:Acethylcholine_receptor_blocked_by_cobra_venom.png for the problem. Thanks. --Joe Quick (Talk) 00:51, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Need template magic

Chris, I wonder if you can figure out what is wrong with {{Information}} as shown in usage at Image:Batman_as_a_child.jpg. When one fills in the other_versions= section, it appears as it does at that image's page in the Permission section. When other_versions= is left blank, there is no problem as shown at Image:Petchicken.jpg. Help? Stephen Ewen 04:17, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

Hehe. I beat you to it, Steve. Read the next message up. ;-) --Joe Quick (Talk) 11:09, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Joe and Stephen, i just tried to fix that template. Does it work for you now? Chris Day (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2007 (CDT)
Yep. Looks good. Thanks much. --Joe Quick (Talk) 13:46, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Tux/gallery

I see Chris-everything in that Gallery is already in the article. What can we do here? Can you combine the two articles? Can one combine the two? Just for precedents sake I'd like to do something, for one thing-it's got 4 computer editors endorseing that template. Shall I ask somebody top remove it? Is there another way out here? Nancy Sculerati 12:21, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, i have commented further on this issue at Matt's talk page here: User_talk:D._Matt_Innis#Approval.3F Chris Day (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2007 (CDT)

Gallery template

Chris, in trying to "manage" approvals while we all invent the process, I have relied on being transparent, as I do not know a better way. So on today's approval announcements, I told the story of the Tux/Gallery approval.[5] Would you mind commenting there as to what exactly is needed for a template? Perhaps we can pull together some ideas. Thank you, Nancy

Sure, I have a few ideas. Primarily keep it simple. I'll expand on the Announcements talk page. Chris Day (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Baron's Bodissey's "Life"

In Life how about a mention of Baron Bodissey's "monumental, many-volume work Life" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Bodissey? Such a serious article as this might have a few words of a lighter nature.... :) Hayford Peirce 13:33, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm probably not the one to add it since I am completely ignorant of this character and his fictional work.Sorry. Chris Day (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2007 (CDT)

How to show sub-cats in cat pages?

Any idea how to make them show? I'd like all within each category at Category:All media to shw when one clicks the + sign. Stephen Ewen 03:04, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

FYI

Check out this conversation on Contraception (medical methods). For future reference. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:41, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

4th editor decision

Chris, where you at :-) See this. What do you think? --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:38, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

You can't go on vacation

Hey, where you at? :-) Don't you miss me? --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:41, 29 May 2007 (CDT)

Crystal Palace

Chris, many thanks for greatly improving the sport section at the end of Crystal Palace. That's much more than I'd known about them, and makes the historical connections between the team and the Palace site far clearer! Cheers, Russell Potter 23:46, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm no expert, so it can be improved for sure, but i had been to the area a few times and knew the section did not connect fully with my memory. One problem is the section title does not match the content so well now since I added a bit too much historical perspective. Chris Day (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
Actually I think the material you added has just the right amount of detail -- and since the palace "site" includes the grounds, I think it fits. Russell Potter 00:01, 5 June 2007 (CDT)
I was thinking about the today part of the 'The Palace site today' title. That last paragraph seems a little out of place. Chris Day (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

DNA

Chris, I would like to nominate DNA for approval with a 10 day time frame. I think that might spur this article into shape by giving a good article the attention it needs. Two questions1) do you agree? and 2) can you help me with the template? How do I do the template? Thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati 12:14, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

HELP!!!

Chris, there aris a DNA/Draft and a DNA. The system of draft articles is strictly to allow for unprotected versions of approved articles to keep going on the wiki. Now, there are two different DNA articles, and -it's a mess. Please help, we need to put recent edits from DNA into DNA/draft and get rid of the title DNA/draft by moving the article DNA/draft to DNA. If you ever notice an author making a draft article of an unapproved article please stop them. In this case, we could have had no problem by just having named DNA draft DNA in the first place. Anyway, please help? Nancy Sculerati 11:04, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Approval process

Larry recommended that you solicit the idea of possibly using the new extension for this process. Could you do that please? I'm not sure what all the relevant channels are. Aaron Schulz 11:11, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

Template:Testapprovehistorical

Heh, that's a rather large template. We've been trying to get the extension's tags down in size ;) Aaron Schulz 12:46, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Always easier said than done of course ;) Actually this is an experimental template at present and if used correctly will not actually be present on any pages in citizendium. It will only be used when an approved version is viewed. Look at the page that Larry set up at User_talk:Larry_Sanger/Approved_in_pagehist. Click on the see words Approved version available to see the context. There are various discussion about this in the forums and on talk pages. I can root them out if I can find them. Do you have some suggestions to tighten it up? Chris Day (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

DNA

Glad you know where things went slightly off target with Cre Chris. I agree with RAD51 of course but my capacity for correcting things was hampered by the fact that the ergito web site has been dowm for repairs, and I was making slow progress checking RAD with Pubmed. Thanks. I use Cre as a teaching example in my course BTW and that Cre link is fantastic. David Tribe 06:31, 13 June 2007 (CDT)

DEFAULTSORT

Any idea how to get this to work at CZ? ---Stephen Ewen 03:20, 24 June 2007 (CDT)

Not without doing a lot of research. I am not familiar wsith it at all. Chris Day (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of getting stuff to work

How do you apply CSS to a template? I'm trying to make a CSS template for NFPA (See http://people.howstuffworks.com/question327.htm) using this method for the template(http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/slantHowto.html) but I can't seem to make a style sheet work on the template. Is this due to some kind of template-for-the-template issue or something on the back end of wikimedia? --Robert W King 00:57, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

You're talking to the wrong person, but I'd assume it requires add ons to the wikimedia. Chris Day (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
I blame Stephen. He directed me to you. Who should I talk to? --Robert W King 13:44, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
I'd suggest go straight to the horses mouth; Jason Potkanski Or an e-mail to bugs@citizendium.org Sorry i can't help you more. Chris Day (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2007 (CDT)
Thanks Chris!--Robert W King 15:11, 28 June 2007 (CDT)

Popovers

Chris, I feel very excited about using popovers in my articles. How can I implement/experiment-with them? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:44, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

What are popovers? I have not used them before. I'm willing to learn. Chris Day (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2007 (CDT)

DNA again

I'm back after a bit of a break. Other issues have been very pressing. Took a peek at DNA. I think its time to reinstate Nancy's To approve tag. There my YES vote, and with yours wed' only need one more. Its good enough to approve I think. David Tribe 18:34, 1 July 2007 (CDT)

Try Now

I made some changes, standardizing the code, making sure things are consistent. Try it now and let me know if it works. --Robert W King 09:35, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Are the fitting issues exhibited in Mozilla/Gecko/Netscape also?--Robert W King 10:01, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Can you visit http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/ and click on the demo for #2? I think that's exactly what the issue is between browsers. I think I need to just figure out a way to make it right for Saf and FFx. --Robert W King 11:04, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Try now under Firefox and Safari.--Robert W King 11:33, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
No change. As for the demo. I used this one, "2- Top: <percentage> on relatively positioned element where its containing block's height is auto must be resolved as top: auto Demo " and it seems to work fine. Certainly all three browsers have the same result. Chris Day (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Under IE 6 the red box doesn't appear underneath the sentence; I'm almost sure this discrepancy is what's causing the anomaly. --Robert W King 11:46, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Interesting. I definitely see the red box. But bear in mind I see it using mozilla too. Chris Day (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
I believe under mozilla, safari, and firefox you should see it directly underneath the sentence as it is described. In IE, I don't see it that way. I see it like halfway down the page, but I see it nonetheless..--Robert W King 11:53, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Yes, i do see it directly below in all cases. Chris Day (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2007 (CDT)
Tell me if the red triangle top is fixed.--Robert W King 13:52, 5 July 2007 (CDT)