NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

User talk:Ro Thorpe

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Use in English
Alphabetical word list
Retroalphabetical list  
Common misspellings  

Archives 1, 2 & 3

Thanks for your corrections to Atmospheric science

Hi, Ro: I really appreciate your help. Milton Beychok 02:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Appreciation appreciated, thanks for the note. Ro Thorpe 13:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ro, Thanks for editing Sirius. If I think Sirius needs it I'll clarify absolute visual magnitude's relationship to luminosity. I'm really grateful for you catching that.

My better half is urging me to crank out short contributions for the practice and to complete some articles CZ has listed as being wanted. At times I'm dictating information while shaving as she types. She's urging me to embrace the Zeitgeist of crowdsourcing improving CZ articles. I'm withholding judgement for now on the wisdom of working that way.

I do have a serious question for you. I'm wondering who my audience is. I'm currently picturing an college audience but college audiences vary considerably. At times I have to explain what atoms are to business and management students in class. I'd like basic cultural information to be very accessible when I write. This has the additional advantage of allowing me to write very short article during my breaks.

What's the background of the ideas that have been floated regarding the audience for articles? I'm supposing some people advocate getting simpler articles done more quickly while other think it's best to write slowly but with more depth than what can usually be found on the internet. Am I correct in assuming this? Also, what's your opinion?

Sincerely, Gary Leonard Cameron 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on Sirius

I just learned how to use the + to make a new topic so my note is out of order above this new topic. Yours, Gary Leonard Cameron 23:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Rationale

Not sure you got this. Point is it's ration-ahl, not ration-aily. Leave it to you to put it in your code. Peter Jackson 08:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I overdid the French, as your 'ration-ahl' reminds me, but I omitted any Latin because there is more than one standard: at my school, for example, it was 'rátìón-àlè'. Ro Thorpe 13:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The actual classical Latin pronunciation would have been (roughly) Ratty O'Nally. Church Latin Ratsy O'Nally. But there are rules for the pronunciation of Latin words adopted into English. However, I only mentioned this as you didn't seem to understand, which you do now. Peter Jackson 09:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks. Ro Thorpe 13:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments at RationalWiki

There might be a case for moving a lot of stuff to Addenda. Peter Jackson 14:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, which comments exactly? And what Addenda? Ro Thorpe 23:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The comments you replied to over there recently. Addenda are one of the types of subpage here, where you can put the less readable stuff. Peter Jackson 09:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
You mean the word lists? I have long felt they distract from the meaty pages, the 'CZ cluster' ones, which unfortunately were put on the bottom row of the grid (which itself is headed 'list'). So, if you know how to handle that, let's do it. Ro Thorpe 12:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I do this sort of thing so rarely that I can never remember from one time to the next what to do. I think you have to edit the metadata template. Peter Jackson 13:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you understand the markup at English spellings/Catalogs/Masterlist? The metadata template doesn't mention it. Ro Thorpe 16:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
No. Peter Jackson 10:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ro, I just noticed your question. Sorry I'm not in as much, my teaching load caught up with me. Chris Day 02:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for getting in touch. See the section above? I wonder if you could alter your creation so that the red row goes to the top, and the others each down one place. And remove the word "List"? Many thanks. Ro Thorpe 13:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Use in English
Alphabetical word list
Retroalphabetical list  
Common misspellings  

I'll try. Chris Day 18:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I think that worked. Let me know if there are problems. Chris Day 18:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Fantastic, it looks wonderful. Thanks ever so much! Best of luck with the teaching (I know what you mean). Ro Thorpe 20:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for supporting my referendum proposal. Cheers, James Yolkowski 16:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Style Guide

Ro, Are you interested in helping set up a Manual of Style for Citizendium? There have been previous discussion in the past on this but like everything else, nothing came of it. Meg Ireland 14:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly would, yes. Indeed it's been something I've been thinking about recently. We should broadly follow Wikipedia. Ro Thorpe 17:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is in decline. You're welcome to follow them but I'm hoping the manual can be a lot better. Meg Ireland 22:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do you say Wikipedia is in decline? Anyway, I meant take the WP MoS as a starting point for something better, yes. Ro Thorpe 23:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
The edit rate hasn't grown since 2007. This constant amount of work is being spread over an ever-increasing number of articles, amking it impossible to maintain such standards as there may have been in the first place. Peter Jackson 15:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
One thing we could do better than Wikipedia would be to avoid the The Nameofmusicalensemble problem. Even now there are people arriving at WP who protest that 'the' should be capitalised in such cases because 'it is part of the name'. Thus The Beatles would be moved to Beatles in the case of the group, allowing us to refer to them as the Beatles, while the 'white album' would be at The Beatles, initial 'The' as part of the title, no need to add '(album)' after it, no need for piping. The Manual of Style would mandate this. Ro Thorpe 13:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Most encyclopaedias (Britannica, World Book, Funk & Wagnalls) though refer to the group as 'the Beatles', so changing it to simply 'Beatles' is a radical step. I can't see The being a major problem here anyway, there is so little vandalism. The problems here at Citizendium are different than those at that other website. Meg Ireland 14:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not about vandalism, but about making linking neater, and yes it would be radical for an encyclopedia, in a positive way, in line with sleeves that state simply Ramones, Buzzcocks, etc. Ro Thorpe 00:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Site notice

At the top of each page, "setup" should be "set up" (the Welcome page has it right). How to change it? Ro Thorpe (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

...Noticed this again, so will post in the forum. Ro Thorpe (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a candidate in the June 2016 election

You've been nominated as a candidate for the Citizendium Council in the June 2016 election. Please visit this page to accept or decline. No action will also be treated as declining. If you accept, you may choose to write an election statement - see the election page for further details. Meg Ireland (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Meg, but no. Ro Thorpe (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)