imported>Milton Beychok |
imported>Pat Palmer |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-7}} | | {{Archive box|auto=long|box-width=30em}} |
| | {{Usertime-text|Milt}}{{Template:Utc|-8 }}<br><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> |
| | ==Milt== |
| | Milt was a great contributor to our project who invested a lot of his own knowledge and time in it; Citizendium is much poorer without him. He was highly trusted and respected, previously serving as the project's Treasurer and on the elected Management and Editorial Councils. However, we were a small part of a long life: Milt completed his degree in 1944, but his graduation was delayed while he saw action in Europe during the Second World War. Decades of experience in both chemical and environmental engineering followed, and he would become a well-published authority on various aspects of these fields, as recognized by his Fellowship of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers. His daughter also tells me he liked to apply his engineering approach to everyday life by collecting recipes and carefully replicating dishes he'd enjoyed. Milt stood firm against pseudoscience and other nonsense, as we at Citizendium can attest, and was a strong proponent of the science and the facts. I am sure I speak for those who knew him here when I say that we will miss him. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] ([[User talk:John Stephenson|talk]]) 12:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. He was a nice gent. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] ([[User talk:Ro Thorpe|talk]]) 14:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP Milt. [[User:JeromeDelacroix|Jérôme Delacroix]] ([[User talk:JeromeDelacroix|talk]]) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC+1) |
| | :RIP Milt. You embodied the true spirit of Citizendium at its best.[[User:Roger A. Lohmann|Roger A. Lohmann]] ([[User talk:Roger A. Lohmann|talk]]) 04:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
| | :RIP MIlt. As a collaborator and colleague, he will be missed. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] ([[User talk:Russell D. Jones|talk]]) 16:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ==Welcome!==
| | Milt had an abundance of wisdom, passion and knowledge. He was with Citizendium from the early days, and embraced fully the spirit and idealism with which Citizendium was launched. He made an enormous contribution to the project. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] ([[User talk:Gareth Leng|talk]]) 21:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC) |
| {{Getting Started}}
| |
| '''Welcome to the ''Citizendium!''''' We hope you will contribute [[CZ:Be Bold|boldly]] and well. You'll probably want to know [[CZ:The Author Role|how to get started as an author]]. Just look at [[CZ:Getting Started]] for other helpful "startup" links, and [[CZ:Home]] for the top menu of community pages. Be sure to stay abreast of events via [https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list] (do join!) and [http://blog.citizendium.org the blog]. Please also join the [[CZ:Mailing lists|workgroup mailing list(s)]] that concern your particular interests. You can test out [[CZ:How to edit an article|editing]] in the [[CZ:Sandbox|sandbox]] if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the [http://forum.citizendium.org/ forums] is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any [[:Category:CZ Constables|constable]] for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! [[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] 21:51, 20 January 2008 (CST)
| |
|
| |
|
| Milton - I've given a partial reply to your question over at [[User talk:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann's talk page]]. Welcome aboard! [[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 17:36, 21 January 2008 (CST)
| | I have missed Milt ever since he needed to leave the project, and I will always remember him fondly.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 01:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == CZ wikilinks == | | == Milt's productivity as chemical engineer == |
|
| |
|
| Milton- when adjusting links for CZ articles, please make the changes to the links within the article and not within the reference item. This way, if it's a 'redlink' then it will have enhanced visibility and might spurn article creation--if it's a 'bluelink', then it is more likely to be visited than if it was scuttled away in the depths of the references. --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 09:51, 29 January 2008 (CST)
| | Let us temper our sadness in the passing of our esteemed colleague with a celebration of his achievements in his field of endeavor. Google Scholar has tabulated 111 articles he published between 1951 and 2005, with links to them and to all the articles that cited them. |
| :Robert, thanks for the advice. I will do as you say in the future. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 11:05, 29 January 2008 (CST)
| |
|
| |
|
| == Article on [[Garbage]] == | | See: [https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=kBHMSC4AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra MR Beychok] |
|
| |
|
| Milton, I had started a stub about [[Garbage]] a few weeks ago, and given your background (I just noticed on the EPA page) would you be interested in contributing to it? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:23, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| | [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] ([[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|talk]]) 22:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC) |
| | |
| :Robert, thanks for asking me. I still have about eight or so articles lined up in my mind to do. And I really have no expertise in solid waste. So I think I will have to pass on your offer.
| |
| | |
| :You have been in Citizendium since April 2007 and I've been here just for a few weeks. Perhaps you might take a brief look at the each of the seven articles that I have contributed (listed on my user page) and tell me what you think of them. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 14:43, 31 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Image size ==
| |
| | |
| Regarding [[:Image:Motiva_Petroleum_Refinery.jpg]], it's good to upload the largest version of the file available. It's more useful to reusers that way. :-) [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 02:43, 2 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Stephen, my primary reason for having uploaded a cropped version of the photo was that I wanted to emphasize the pollution plume from the refinery's flare ... because the photo was to be used in the [[Air pollution dispersion terminology]] article.
| |
| | |
| :When you revised my upload to the larger size, the flare's plume is now barely visible in the photo in that article ... which defeats my whole purpose for uploading the photo.
| |
| | |
| :As a compromise, I would like to upload my version again under a different name ([[:Image:Motiva Refinery Flare.jpg]]). In other words, there would be two versions available. Would that be agreeable with you? - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 10:40, 2 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::I replied [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#Regarding_Image:Motiva_Petroleum_Refinery.jpg here]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 11:10, 2 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Topic Informants Workgroup ==
| |
| | |
| Milt, I emailed you. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:25, 3 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Stephen, I have not recieved your email as yet. My address is mbeychok@cox.net. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:56, 3 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ==chemical images ==
| |
| Milton, send me a note for any of your excellent articles that you would like a chemical drawing of. I can whip them
| |
| out in a few minutes for you. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:28, 4 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks, David. When the need arises, I'll take you up on your offer. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 15:32, 4 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == chemical engineering/chemistry ==
| |
| | |
| Dear Milton, if you would add <nowiki>[[Category: Chemistry Workgroup]]</nowiki> to your chemical engineering articles, I could help you in approving them, as I'm a chemistry editor. The CZ system is somewhat bureaucratic in that I cannot do it otherwise (although I have an MSc in chemical engineering from Delft University of Technology).--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 03:16, 5 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Paul, thank you and I will add that category. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 11:27, 5 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == can you point me in the right direction in learning about air pollution from long beach and la's ports? ==
| |
| | |
| Is it true that the majority of the smog causing particles / chemicals actually come from ships that cannot be easily regulated since they are considered to be in international waters?
| |
| | |
| Is 'playing-down-the-middle' Governator (so that he can win California US senator) going to address this issue?
| |
| | |
| I mainly find news sources for LA Smog problems; where would I find a good review paper on LA Smog? Where can I learn about political efforts and grass root campaigns which are trying to enact change?
| |
| | |
| Sorry that my comments are so biased and full of opinion (they will not appear on any article on smog related topics). Glad you are part of the CZ team and I look forward to reading all of your articles. [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 01:25, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Tom, the best place you could seek such information would be from the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Their website is at www.scaqmd.gov and there you will find their address and their contact information. I happen to think that they do a very good job and are very knowledgeable.
| |
| | |
| :The biggest contributors '''by far''' to our smog problems in the LA basin are automotive vehicles (cars, busses and trucks). - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:58, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::Thank you for your advice and insight. [[User:Tom Kelly|Tom Kelly]] 15:10, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Approval ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, I'm prepared to carefully read [[Petroleum refining processes]] and to approve it (maybe I will see fit to make some small changes, I don't know yet). However, before I do this you should know that approval has two disadvantages:
| |
| # Your authorship becomes hidden, history will show Matt Innis and Larry Sanger as sole contributors. Personally I don't mind this, but some people do.
| |
| # Your article will be locked, you cannot change anything anymore. For me this is the reason not to go for approval of my articles. I have one approved article, [[Van der Waals equation]], and several times I felt the urge to change something in it, but couldn't.
| |
| | |
| To tell you the truth: I don't know any advantage of approval. Anyhow, let me know if you want me to approve [[Petroleum refining processes]]. Cheers --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 03:38, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Paul, changes are made to the draft and that become re-approved. Moreover, the history of contributors is preserved if the process is done correctly, e.g., see the history at [[Butler]]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 10:04, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :::Paul, the answer is yes. I would like you to participate in the approval process for [[Petroleum refining processes]]. Thanks very much, - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 11:42, 6 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::::Milton, Matt answered your questions on my talk page.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 07:56, 9 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| Congratulations! Keep them coming! [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Petroleum_refining_processes/Draft#APPROVED_Version_1.0] --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 01:20, 10 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Hi Milton, in reference to the good question you left on my talk page; yes, you've got the right idea, the draft and the approved version are now the same. From here, as contributers edit the draft, the approved version will remain he same. At some point, the entire process will repeat with an editor (or three, depending on the method) nominating that the draft replace the approved version. This can happen in the next few days or it may stay the same for months. I have found that there are occasionally some quick changes that get made in the next few weeks that update the approved page, then it pretty much remains stable from then on. You might also be interested to notice that the article that you were working on was 'moved' to the draft page rather than 'copied'. That way the history went with the draft so that, as the article progresses, the history remains the same from day one. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:10, 10 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == drawing ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, I sent you an e-mail with a stub of a drawing on <milt at air-dispersion dot com>. Did you get it?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:53, 12 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Paul, I got your email and I have responded by email. Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 13:42, 12 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::Milton I saw that you made a neat (and very small!) drawing. Apparently you are a very good computer draughtsman, so why did you ask for help? Maybe I can ask you next time I need a drawing? With regard to your number of articles, I don't think you can overdo it, the more the better. Remember CZ is not on paper, we don't take shelfspace (in households and libraries).--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:04, 18 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Moving articles ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, you did work hard there! I agree that if we had a way to move all pages at the same time that would be great. That would be one of those technical jobs that is over my head, but post a note on the technical forum (check the list to the left <--). You might be able to hook up with someone that can make us something like that. [[User:Chris Day]] made the subpages, so he would likely be a good start as well. I think you could have moved all those pages and that should have been easier than copy and paste, but I am not sure. I have only done two or three and they were so far apart that I can't remember how I did it! But, it seems that moving should be easier.
| |
| | |
| As far as helping with downloading engineering articles, that would be awesome! Have you seen [[User:Anthony.Sebastian]]'s project to get [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian#Volunteer_.22wikiconverters.22 volunteers] to help convert text for those that are not familiar with wiki mark-up? Also, make sure and leave a note at your workgroup [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Engineering_Workgroup] and on the engineering forum, though they are not that active right now. There have been lots of engineers that have been active and looking for other engineers, so maybe if you use the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Mailing_lists engineering mailing list] and mass mail all of them, someone will be gald to hear from you and have something they need help with. nad there is always the blog (<---). I think with the energy you have, you might be able to stimulate some activity and really get the engineering workgroup running. Let me know if I can help along the way! [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 08:26, 21 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| : In general, moving pages via cut-and-paste is really deprecated, as it separates the content from its history, and we probably really need to keep them together, for copyright legal reasons. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 15:54, 25 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::Noel, as noted in Matt Innis's comment above, I copied-and-pasted ... I did not cut-and-paste. Regards, - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 16:04, 25 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::: Either way, there is content in the new (pasted) location which is divorced from its detailed creation history record at the old location - and that is what I was concerned about. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 16:32, 25 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Volunteer wiki-converter ==
| |
| | |
| Milton, see: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian#Volunteer_to_convert_articles_emailed_in.
| |
| --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 14:50, 21 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Chemistry style guide ==
| |
| Milton, I have started a chemistry style guide here [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:David_E._Volk/Chemistry_style_guide]
| |
| | |
| please jump in with any thoughts you might have. It is a crude start to be refined over the next few weeks as I or others come up with new items to discuss. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 17:56, 21 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Gravitation ==
| |
| | |
| Milton we were bot working on the same article, sorry. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 03:47, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks, Paul, for simplifying the article as I had proposed. Now, it is 2 o'clock in the morning and I '''must''' get to bed. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:01, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == phosphorus approval ==
| |
| Milton, because [[User:Paul Wormer]] and I have both contributed significantly to the article [[phosphorus]], we cannot approve it ourselves. Could you take a look at the phosphorus article and submit for the approval process. Paul or I could do it if we have a third person approve (if you don't know how the approval process works), otherwise you could approve it by yourself. Please take a look and send feedback. Thanks, [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:04, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :In the CZ pages somewhere, it says that things '''generally known by experts in the field''' do not need to be referenced. Typically, references need really only be needed for contentious facts or areas of debate.
| |
| :Accordingly, most of the information in this article is readily known by chemists and does not therefore need to be cited. However, I will read through the entire thing by Friday (too much to do right now) and double check our work. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 12:36, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::Does that means that any non-expert reading an article must take it on faith that the facts are correct? Can't say that I would agree with that. In any event, please let me know if what I must do to start the approval process on the MetaData template is correct as I listed on your Talk page. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 12:51, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :::First, your approval text looks about right. You can find the exact procedure on the [[CZ:Approval process]] page, in the '''When and how to fill in the "ToApprove" metadata''' section. You can use five tildas to make the time stamp, for example.
| |
| | |
| :::As for the faith part, yes and no. This is meant to be an authoritative source, based on expert knowledge. Just like one would cite the Encyclopedia Britanica, they can site CZ. However, there is still a place for things on the Bibliography and External Links subpages for additional reference material of particular importance. The idea is that common knowledge of experts need not be cited, thus when a mathemetician asserts that 2(pi) radians = 360 degrees, no reference to the original source is needed because this is common knowledge. Likewise, the oxidation of phosphorus to phosphate does not need citations because it is common knowledge. In my interpretation, things that appear in every general chemistry book do not need citations, because that is just another expert writing down what he also knows. However, sometimes I use > 50 citations because it is very specialized information, like in this article [[List of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments]]. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:08, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::::David, I will mark my calendar to start the approval on Moday, March 3rd. That will give you time to read the article on Friday (as you said above) and make whatever changes you deem needed. If that is not okay, please let me know. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 14:29, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :::: Great, I did a speed through and noted some typos and grammar that still need fixing, and some things to consider references for. Thanks for your tweeks. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:12, 26 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| Milton, I have finished my copyedits and added a reference for the isotopes information. It was already on the external links subpage, but now also listed as a reference. We now have six specific references, and about the same number of general chemistry sources listed on the bibliography page, so I think the article is ready for approval. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:18, 3 March 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| :: Milton, thank you for getting the approval going. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:51, 3 March 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| : Milton, I signed the article and put a note on Paul's talk page asking him to do so as well. I forgot that you had contributed, so we need all three signatures for approval. thanks for the reminder. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 11:08, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == I responded to your post on the forums ==
| |
| | |
| You're right. Most of the work in the engineering "workgroup" is parallel play. You do yours, I do mine, but there isn't a lot of cross contribution. One factor may be that most of us do more work on articles for which we have specific expertise and less on articles that are more general in nature where there is more likelihood of interaction. Regards. [[User:Dan Nachbar|Dan Nachbar]] 08:26, 2 March 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| : Just to note that I do quite a lot of random wandering amongst CZ pages, cleaning up obvious things as I go, and have certainly noted the very high quality of your contributions. My first concern - and that of many contributors here at present - is to simply increase the volume of quality content on CZ, and there arent many people here yet who are doing that as effectively as you are. So, thanks.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:17, 3 March 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ::I added some history and politics to your Environmental Protection Agency article--it's one of the most politically visiible agencies. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]]
| |
| | |
| :::Thanks, Richard, I noticed your changes when they showed up on my watchlist. I also converted many of your references to the <nowiki>{{cite book}}</nowiki> format. Regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 18:04, 6 March 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == google ==
| |
| | |
| It does take a while sometimes for information to be updated in Google searches. I can't tell you how long, exactly, but it's usually a couple of days at least. The reason is that they use a program that goes around following links from page to page and then saves a copy of each page it visits. It's the saved pages that the Google search engine actually combs through to give you results. New changes show up whenever the program swings through again and saves a new copy, but I have no idea how often that happens. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 19:11, 6 March 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == [[Phosphorus]] Approved! ==
| |
| | |
| Good work Milton! Keep going. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 22:49, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Article output ==
| |
| | |
| Hi, just a quick note to let you know how amazed I am by the way you quietly crank out amazing amounts of material. The rest of us are running around getting diverted by process issues (like encyclopaedia structure), but you just keep your nose down and keep generating more high-quality content. As far as I can tell, you're basically single-handedly writing the entire chemical engineering section! I'm suitably impressed. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 19:29, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Thanks for the kind words, I really appreciate them. Could you help me with two items?
| |
| | |
| :(1) I would like to have my [[Chemical engineering]] article nominated for approval. It is not technical at all and almost anyone could nominate it. It does not require an engineer to do so. I've been too busy writing articles to do any networking and haven't met too many people.
| |
| | |
| :(2) I requested that the [[CZ:Chemical Engineering Workgroup]] (which I partially created myself) be approved and fully created as a subgroup within the Engineering Workgroup. The ensuing discussion at [[CZ:New Workgroup Requests#Chemical Engineering]] ended inconclusively. Could you perhaps get that discussion going again and take it to a positve conclusion? My half-finished [[CZ:Chemical Engineering Workgroup]] already has 39 articles in it.
| |
| | |
| :I would be most appreciative if you would help with either or both of the above. Best regards, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:00, 12 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Chemical Engineering article ==
| |
| Milton, I have made some suggests for small edits, and also a larger list-to-paragraph suggestion regarding this article. I can approve the article after you make the small edits. It would be better to rewrite the long list but that isn't a necessity for approval. I checked some of the references, and will check each one later today. It is a very nice article. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 09:27, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :David, I agree with all of your comments on the Talk page of the [[Chemical engineering]] article and have made the appropriate changes. Thanks for your help. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 10:55, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Milton, because I did no work on the article, I can approve it by myself. Paul can add his approval also, but it is not needed. That is why I suggested changes for you to make instead of me doing it for you. On [[Phosphorus]], you had made some minor changes, as had Paul and I, and so that article required all three of us, or 1 independent editor. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 15:11, 13 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Milton, for minor edits that are not substantial, such as commas, periods, wikilinks, etc, I would not have
| |
| to change the approval date, just the url and I would make a not on the talk page stating this for clarity. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 16:09, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :: I have update the url link to the current version on the metadata for approval. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 17:08, 17 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| ::: One of the constables should make the change to an approved article, and make a copy on the Draft page for later changes. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 12:34, 21 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| [[Chemical Engineering]] approved! Thanks for the reminder! --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 15:44, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Chemical engineering All articles ==
| |
| | |
| Hi Milton, part of your problem with Chemical engineering is that the workgroup was not set up through the usual means. I also see that it is listed 4th on the metadata page, and only three were initially set up on the template. All in all, you might consider asking [[User:Chris Day]] if there is a way do it so that you won't one day lose all your work. I think the engineering workgroup is going to have to work together to decide how to present itself to get this done the way you want it. --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 18:29, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| :I just noticed this problem. So there is a chemical engineering workgroup now? And apparently a need for four workgroups in the metadata, or is there? I think we had this discussion before and decided that four was probably excessive. In this case, would engineering and chemical engineering both be required? What about biology? I don't know the answer, just thinking allowed about whether we really need four. From a techniical perspective it can be done, although the current subpages template does not support it. Likewise, I can make the subpages template add the respective workgroup categories to the draft version too. Maybe this should go to the forums? The real issue here is that we don't want to be adding categories manually due tot he obvious problems associated with maintaining such catageories. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:46, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Chris and Matt: The problem is that some time ago, in my ignorance, I commited a faux pas and partially created a [[:Category:Chemical Engineering Workgroup]] and populated it with about 40 articles I had written. When I found that I could not totally create that workgroup, I requested help at [[CZ:New Workgroup Requests#Chemical Engineering]] and asked that it be created fully as a subgroup of the [[:Category:Engineering Workgroup]]. I suggest that you both read the ensueing discussion there, which seemed to peter out with nothing being done.
| |
| | |
| ::As matters stand now, the [[:Category:Engineering Workgroup]], [[:Category:Chemistry Workgroup]] and the [[:Category:Biology Workgroup]] each include the approved [[Chemical engineering]] article in their "All articles", "Approved" and "Draft" sections. But in my incorrectly created [[:Category:Chemical Engineering Workgroup]], the article appears only in the "Draft articles" section.
| |
| | |
| ::I am a complete dud as a computer guru. If either or both of you could straighten this out, I would be most grateful. Once again, I suggest that you both read the discussion about this in [[CZ:New Workgroup Requests#Chemical Engineering]].
| |
| | |
| ::One final point: Yes, I believe that the metadata template should have room for 4 categories as a minimum. Thanks for any help either or both of you can provide. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 19:13, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::So you're real problem is the lack of a 4th option in the metadata template. First I'll read the discussion at the new workgroup request page. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 19:32, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::: Chris, I'm not so sure about the need for 4. I don't see why the [[Chemical Engineering]] article needs to be in the Biology workgroup, to be frank.
| |
| :::: Here's another idea for you: shared inheritance. I forget exactly how Wikipedia categories work, but it should be possible to have articles in the "Chemical Engineering" category automatically appear in both the "Chemistry" and "Engineering" categories. That way the metadata would only need to list the one category, "Chemical Engineering". (Yes, if there are some ChemE articles which one would, for some reason, want in one but not in the other, that would be an issue. I suspect we're going to be tweaking on this workgroups concept for a while.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 20:40, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::::J. Noel, the [[Chemical engineering]] article makes a point of the fact that chemical engineers also work in biochemical and bioengineering industries. The article also has a section devoted to the fact that many universities now offer a degree in "Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering". That is why the Biology Workgroup was included as one of the categories.
| |
| | |
| :::::The major problem, in a nut shell, is whether CZ is going to have subgroup categories or not. It isn't just Chemical Engineering that concerns me. There are also the other major engineering disciplines of Mechanical Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Electrical Engineering to name just a few. Lumping them all into one Engineering Workgroup is just not going to work as CZ grows and attracts more engineers. - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 22:07, 23 March 2008 (CDT)
| |
Where Milt lives it is approximately: 14:32