User talk:Hayford Peirce: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Hayford Peirce
imported>John Stephenson
m (Protected "User talk:Hayford Peirce" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
 
(711 intermediate revisions by 46 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{archive box}}


== All Previous Material Moved To Archive 7; Start New Headers Below This ==
== Threading ==
Moving this discussion from ID talk page.  Do you remember if there was already a discussion in the forum.  If so I think I missed it and i don't want to rehash old news.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, there was one several months ago, in which I *thought* some sort of consensus was arrived at. Milton, I believe, was writing the text for this blue Etiquette box that we see at the top of the screen, and we were discussing what exactly to put into it. I thought that it was *you* who was doing the actual writing of the template and also, maybe, participating in the discussion.  But, I guess, you were just putting in what Milton asked you to. Having gone through that one discussion, this is why I get annoyed, sometimes, when people seem to arbitrarily decide not to play by the rules/guidelines/suggestions/whatever that were talked about. (I think that as a result of the discussion, someone *also* went in the CZ:HowToDo things and rewrote it to say that the use of indents in threading *was* the way to do it, not merely a "suggestion".) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)"
::May I point out, Hayford, that threading refers specifically to the system which you are deprecating? :-p
::Also, re. "people seem to arbitrarily decide not to play by the rules" - I've never actually come across such rules, and until you mentioned them the other day I had no idea that discussions were supposed to be linear.
::Anyhow, I am very much in favour of a new discussion or a vote. I believe the form software allows them to be set up very easily.
::[[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 17:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm all for a new discussion, just as long as it gives a definitive, permanent answer. I don't care one way or another, except I do have my own personal opinion, of course. Lemme look for where what I call "the rules" spell it out -- I know it's there somewhere. (I myself didn't just arbitrarily decide one day that we were going to use colons for indents come hell or high water!) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Here, Caesar, take a look at this: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages&action=edit&section=4 There's probably some wriggle room in there, but maybe not. The intent seems clear, however. I know that *you* weren't here at the time of the discussion (which apparently was back in January), but some of the other people who disagree with the indentation system *were* here and, I think, didn't raise their voices very strongly in opposition. (In their defense, I *will* say that we were struggling with '''two''' different issues at the same time. We had just gone through some problems with, shall I say, a "difficult" contributor, who insisted first on putting all new comments at the '''top''' of the page, '''and''' using/or not using the indent or anything-other system except in his own totally arbitrary manner. It was in a reaction to him that we rewrote the rules.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::I have not read your link yet, but here's the interesting thing.  I did write the text in the blue box, but my interpretation of that text seems to be different to your own. Obviously this is more subjective than we had realised.  This makes me suspect I missed the discussion since I think I would have brought this up at the time, if I had noticed it. Anyway, I'll now go back and read the original discussion. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Great! And if, after you find it, you would put a link to it '''[[CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages#How_to_reply_to_an_on_going_discussion|here]]''', I would be very grateful! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::So I did participate on the talk page but not on the CZ page. <s>As far as i can tell, the scenario where two people reply to the same person is not discussed.</s> OK it is. I guess I disagree with that example.  I should read the talk page more carefully to see what the rationale was.  For your information, I would have thought the example in that link should look like the following since both lisa and george are replying to Bob. In the current example it looks like George is replying to Lisa.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Example:
{| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"
|
<nowiki>How's the soup? --[[Bob]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>:It's great!! --[[Lisa]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>:Not too bad.. --[[George]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>::I made it myself! --[[Bob]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>I think the soup discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Lisa]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]</nowiki><br>
|}
The above will produce this:
{| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"
|
How's the soup? --[[Bob]]<br>
:It's great!! --[[Lisa]]<br>
:Not too bad.. --[[George]]<br>
::I made it myself! --[[Bob]]<br>
I think the soup discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Lisa]]<br>
:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]<br>
|}
Yes, I can see that. Geez, what a can of worms! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:It depends what is valued most.  An effort to maintain the chronology of replies by indenting or an effort to match the replies in the correct context. Obviously this is only an issue when multiple people are involved in a discussion. I prefer the example where the two replies are on the same level since it is then obvious that Lisa and George are both replying to Bob. In our current example:
::{| border="1" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"
|
How's the soup? --[[Bob]]<br>
:It's great!! --[[Lisa]]<br>
::Not too bad.. --[[George]]<br>
:::I made it myself! --[[Bob]]<br>
I think the soup discussion should be moved to [[Talk:Soup]].. --[[Lisa]]<br>
:I tend to disagree. --[[George]]<br>
|}
:I had to read for context to determine who George was addressing. The chronology, for me, is less of an issue since you can untie complex pages by stepping through the edit history or looking at the time stamp.  For me, reading for context is more time consuming on a busy talk page. Obviously neither solution is near perfect. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, the example seems pretty clear to me; it shows threading.
::Bob asks how the soup is. Lisa and George people answer him, each indented one level. He then replies to George of them, indenting a further one level.
::Below, a separate discussion is taking place. Lisa suggest moving the soup discussion, and George replies - indenting one level - to say that he disagrees.
::The only complaint I have about the example is that the spacing is a little weird. I think we should allways leave a blanbk line between one comment and the next, with the possible exception of if they are both by the same person.
::[[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 06:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
:::"''Lisa and George people answer him, each indented one level.''" The problem is that our [[CZ:How_to_use_talk_pages#How_to_reply_to_an_on_going_discussion|current example]] does not do this. I agree about the blank line.  it makes it much easier to find the relevant text when in edit mode. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Ah yes; I see that now. I had thought the first example was a copy-paste from the instructions, because I just skimmed the posts above... never a good idea! [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
== Let's start a new one, to clear the air ==
Oh, I thought you meant you were going to find a Forums discussion. Am I misremembering and *all* of the discussion was on a talk page (or more than one talk page). If you will recall, because of Dr. Cohen, this was a contentious subject at the time. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
:Oh I see, sorry for the confusion.  Your original link went to an edit page for me. I actually don't remember any of this discussion, my mind must have been on other things, even though I participated. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
::It's confusing because I think we had *two* ongoing discussions, one (or more) in the talk pages, and another in the Forum. I think I can say without fear of contradictions, however, that any *new* discussion will probably bring up the same arguments. I think that what I *may* have said at the time, in one place or another, was that it didn't so much matter as to *which* system we chose, but that we should only have '''one''', to prevent confusion and acrimony. Which, of course, has again arisen. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
==Unifying concepts==
It's...it's...(Monty Python) the Soup [threading] Nazi (extended Seinfeld). [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
== Replace template in Approved article ==
Hayford, would you mind changing the following, at the beginning of [[Tux]]?<br />
Currently
<pre>
{{subpages}}
[[Image:Linux_Tux_Logo.png|thumb|150px|right|Tux the penguin, the Linux mascot, as he most commonly appears and as originally drawn by Larry Ewing. Also see [[Tux/Gallery|"A pictorial history of Tux".]]]]
__NOTOC__
{{dablink|This article is for Tux the [[Linux]] mascot. For other uses, see [[Tux (disambiguation)]].}}
</pre>
Please change to
<pre>
{{subpages}}
{{dambigbox|Tux the [[Linux]] mascot|Tux}}
__NOTOC__
[[Image:Linux_Tux_Logo.png|thumb|150px|right|Tux&nbsp; the official Linux penguin. This image depicts him as most commonly appears and as originally drawn by Larry Ewing. Also see [[Tux/Gallery|"A pictorial history of Tux".]]]]
</pre>
Thanks, [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 06:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks. [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
== Monster crisps ==
Yes, Pringles, how I used to love them, but a health scare forced me to give them up about a decade ago - nice article in the NYT. We have the odd situation wherein there are separate articles on the very similar chips/chipped potatoes and fries, but none on crisps/potato chips. That sent me back to the language articles, but I don't know that I could start a new one on such a scientific subject; I could essay an opening definition, perhaps, after dinner. Crisps are potato-based snacks found in English pubs, hmm... [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:I gotta say that Pringles actually taste pretty good, particularly the sour cream-chives one, even though they're all frankenfood monsters grown in a vat.... As you say, I was surprised there was no article. There were a couple of Dereks here a couple of years ago who did some stuff, then vanished, I thought that one of them had done it.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
== Please weigh in on this with your comments ==
Hayford, please look at my comments [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21364.html#msg21364 here] on the forums. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
== Ketoconazole ==
Thanks for the approval work Hayford. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
== Asneira ==
is a nice Portuguese word for what I did yesterday, moving a talk page instead of the page itself. And my efforts to undo the mistake have only made matters worse: [[Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]]. But I'm sure Officer Peirce can help. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 13:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:What exactly are you trying to do? Should the article be at [[Bruch Violin Concerto Number 1]] and the talk page at [[Talk:Bruch Violin Concerto Number 1]], or the article at [[Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]] and the talk page at [[Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]], or what? [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The article should be at [[Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]] & the talk at [[Talk:Violin Concerto No. 1 (Bruch)]]. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 14:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
:Is [[Violin_Concerto_No._1_(Bruch)|that]] OK now? [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
== ToApprove articles ==
Hayford, I've been in contact by email with Robert Badget about those articles.  I'll let you know when everything is straightened out. --Joe (04:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)) [[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]
:Should be all straightened out now.  Both are due for approval on July 1st. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
== I revised [[CZ:Article of the Week]]. Provided a place for anyone to simply make nominations. Then the program Administrators will do the transclusions. ==
I just revised the [[CZ:Article of the Week]] to provide a place (and instructions) for any CZ author or editor to simply add the names of new  nominees.
'''I did NOT make any revisions to the transcluded versions of the articles that were added by Daniel Mietchen, Caesar Chinas or myself.''' All I did was provide a new section where anyone can simply add new nominees without having to transclude them.
I also reworded some section headers (and relocated one section) to make clear that Administrators of the "Article of the Week" initiative would do the transclusions.
I did that because I felt many authors and editors would be reluctant to make nominations if they had to do the transclusion themselves.
I asked Caesar Chinas to review my revision. After he does, I will also revise [[CZ:New Draft of the Week]] similarly. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
== approvals ==
Thanks for taking care of [[folk saint]].  Did you notice that [[Randomized controlled trial]] and [[Evidence-based medicine]] are both scheduled to be re-approved today too? --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:I did those two first, for practice. They're actually easier to do than the real Approval.  So you can remove them, or move them around, or renumber, or whatever needs to be done.
::Huh.  It must have taken longer for the cache to clear or something.  When I left the message above, it looked like they were still awaiting a constable.  They look fine now, though.  I'll post a note on the approvals announcement page. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 22:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
:Oh. By the way, Roger found a typo in the lead paragraph of [[folk saint]].  Could you fix it on the approved version?  Thanks much. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
::Sure. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
== Constable issue ==
Hayford, you are a constable: Do you think this is a case where an approved article should be changed?
See [[User_talk:Jitse_Niesen#Complex_number_page]] [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 22:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
== Dutch article ==
Hayford, can you please delete [[Kroese brands & behaviour]] because (1) it is an advertisement (2) it is straight from the Dutch WP (placed there by [[user:MarkBoukes]] and it is about to be deleted) and (3) it is in Dutch. Thank you.  --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
== Wanted: comma ==
Hi, Hayford. Someone has edited the 'This is a draft article' thingy, and, well, it looks a tad dummm... But I don't know how to put in the comma, perhaps you can. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:Gimme a klew, myte, as to where this thingee might be! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, at [[It Won't Get You Anywhere]], for example. '''This is a draft article...''', the panel that appears at the top of all draughty articles. It looks as if someone has rewritten it, because I don't think it used to be in bold, but neglected to put a comma after 'cited'. [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:Ah. There's a long discussion going on about it in the Forum. I've rewritten it as follows: "This is a '''draft article''', under development and not meant to be cited, but you can help improve it. These unapproved articles are subject to a disclaimer." If you agree that this is what it should be, lemme know and I'll tell the Forum chappies -- Lord knows what they're doing and where.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Thanks! Discussion about it?!? [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:You gotta keep up wid de times, myte! http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2771.30/topicseen.html [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's fixed now. And thanks for the mention! [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 20:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
:Idly wonders if a "missing period" would bring up as much attention in BE. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
== Hayford, please look at first sentence of [[Chemical elements]] ==
Hayford, would you please look at first sentence of [[Chemical elements]] purely from the viewpoint of grammar and use of the English language? Then let us have your opinion  [[Talk:Chemical_elements#The_article.27s_first_sentence_is_hopelessly_convoluted|here]] on the article's Talk page? Thanks, [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
== Reply to edit summary ==
"there's no article about the [[Pacific Theater]]?!"
Lol. Not if you or Howard haven't made it. Apparently there's nothing on [[D-Day]] either.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 04:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
:I haven't quite decided whether to do a complete rewrite of [[World War II, Pacific]], but I have done a lot. Technically, there was no single formal Pacific Theater. At a minimum, there was Pacific Ocean and Pacific Ocean Areas under Nimitz, Southwest Pacific Area under MacArthur, and China-Burma-India, which then split into China under Stilwell and Southeast Asia under Mountbatten, with Wavell in India. XX and XXI Bomber commands, operating against Japan, reported direct to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
:For D-Day, see [[Battle of Normandy]], and other associated articles. I need to get the BOLERO-SLEDGEHAMMER-ROUNDUP vs. OVERLORD-NEPTUNE in a more coherent place. Technically, any invasion day is D-day, at H-Hour and M-Minute. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
== [http://www.wordnik.com Wordnik dotcom] ==
Thanks, it's great. And I also like typing in names of places & looking at the pictures (e.g. Westerham). [[User:Ro Thorpe|Ro Thorpe]] 14:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
== leftover Eduzendium article ==
Hayford, it seems to me that [[Sympatric speciation]] can go.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 11:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
== You have enemies ==
Hayford,  just for the fun of it, I checked [http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405097&c=1 here] again. Two guys, who apparently don't like you, wrote comments (at the end of July). For the record: I don't agree with their comments. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
:He should take them to court &mdash; tennis court, that is. It's hard to be anon when being hit by balls. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 20:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
== science fiction / science-fiction ==
Please let me know when to use "science fiction" (without a hyphen) and when to use "science-fiction" (with a hyphen). For example, of the two definitions below, which is correct?
# Alfred Bester: (1913-87) American science fiction writer; wrote ''The Demolished Man''.
# Alfred Bester: (1913-87) American science-fiction writer; wrote ''The Demolished Man''.
I will be posting a working list of sf writers and works in a day or two and would like to begin working on the definitions.
[[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 16:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
:It's with a hyphen when you use the phrase to modify or describe someone or something. Such as "Alfred Bester was an American science-fiction writer who wrote science fiction of the very highest quality." This is called a "compound modifier" and is ignored by some people but actually is correct. See the Wikipedia article about them, with the science-fiction example that I furnished. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compound_modifier] Cheers! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
== Please note my request for Speedy deletion ==
Hayford, please note my request that [[Heat Recovery Steam Generator]] by speedily deleted for the reasons stated in the <nowiki>{{Speedydelete}}</nowiki> template. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 07:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:Someone put in a whole bunch of other articles to delete that I don't understand so I left them alone. Yours must have been among them and I didn't bother to look at it. Let me know personally if you have any more to delete so that I'll be sure to do it. PS -- you might take a look at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests and tell me what's going on with these if you can figure it out. Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:: This seems to be caused by Daniel's Related Articles bot. I left him a [[User talk:Daniel Mietchen#Related Articles - bug?|note]] about it. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 19:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
== What is with this article? ==
[[Toxoplasma gondii*]] --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 15:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:It was apparently a misplaced Eduzendium article. I found the original one at [[Toxoplasma gondii]] and either deleted or restored the other one. In any case, I think it's gone, and the real one is there. You can check again and let me know if the bad one is still wandering around somewhere. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
== and with  this one? ==
[[Hominin intelligence]] --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:Apparently an article that never got written. I've deleted it. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:: /Definition and /Related Articles still exist. [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Please point me to them and I'll zap 'em. Some of these things are relatively arcane for a poor dumb Kop like me. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::: They already show the speedydelete template. By the way, I think that -- to assist cops -- deleting tools should offer to choose from the complete cluster. Don't they? [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 19:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Okie, they're now gone. Thanks. I didn't see them there because there are a lot of other "related" delete requests that I don't know what to do about, or where they came from. So I'm leaving them alone. Yes, you would *think* that the deleting tools would delete the entire cluster. Sometimes they do, I think. But there's no on-off switch that I know of that the worthy constable can click.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Can you send me a screenshot of the list of related articles up for deletion? Peter suspects that the related article bot may have something to do with it, and even though I strongly doubt that, it is perhaps better to have a closer look. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Can't you just go here? http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Category:Speedy_Deletion_Requests If not, I'll send you a screen shot.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::OK, been there, and it's mysterious to me too. None of those that I checked did have the speedy template or deletion category but they seem to have been created when Caesar was testing the bot. I will try to fix them manually and get back to you if this fails. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Fixed them. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
(Oops -- I linked the wrong section. Should be [[#Please note my request for Speedy deletion]].)
Did you notice that Category:Speedy delete is listed (below the edit window) when you edit the page?
[[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
:No, hadn't seen that, but now they're off the list. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
::I don't always want to use the delete template, because I'm not always sure that the article ought to go. I then prefer the constable to have a fresh look.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 06:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
== Kamehameha I ==
Thank you Hayford your help. I usually wait until I'm done with the article to add the subpages, however if it is common practice to add it even if the article isn't done, I'll start doing so. I also agree that in the current state the article looks best with the TOC on the right, however I am planning on adding at least a small infobox and some photos/paintings, so I may have to move that around a bit. Either down, or back to the left side.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
== Plato, Socrates, Aristotle ==
I would not consider them for inclusion in the Lit WG core articles listing. My reasoning is that an article on each of these would go with the Philosophy WG as the primary WG. So I would only list those authors whose ''primary'' CZ workgroup would be literature. Anyway, that is my reasoning. [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]] 19:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
:I agree with you, almost certainly. I was more wondering than anything else.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
== " I don't think that TOC are ever put on the LEFT side -- pictures are. can you switch the TOC and the info box? thanks" ==
Actually, left side TOC's are pretty much the norm. Go through a bunch of random pages using the random page link, and the only ones with a right side TOC are your articles. Every other article, including one of the two mainpage articles, uses a left side TOC.
That being said, I'm not against a right side TOC. I think it should be up to the author to determine what looks best. In my opinion, a left side TOC looks best with the Kamehameha article.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 09:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'll be darned! I just did ten random pages (out of about 20 in order to get ten with TOCs) and was amazed to see that there were nine LEFT and only one RIGHT. I guess that I and my friends just always used Right, so I assumed that this was the natural way. Left is probably the Default setting, I would say. Geez, I learn something every day! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 17:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
== typo correction on an approved article ==
Hi Hayford,
Could you make the typo correction Matt asked about on [[User_talk:Approvals_Manager#Typo_in_approved_version|the approvals manager talk page]]?  He was involved as an approving editor for the article, so it's best for another constable to take care of it.  Thanks much. --Joe ([[User:Approvals Manager|Approvals Manager]]) 16:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:35, 13 January 2021

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Hayford_Peirce&oldid=26907"