User talk:Hayford Peirce

Hayford Peirce

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

CZ:Article mechanics

The guidelines for Definitions have been changed to "no more than 30 words/150 characters". This is not in conformity with CZ:Definitions as claimed: It gives 100 characters, just as is in the info text shown when a new definition is edited. (Personally, I think it is better to request the lower limit and be tolerant if it is slightly exceeded.) Peter Schmitt 23:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that the change had been made but I didn't bother to verify whether it was correct or not. Are you saying that his rewriting was wrong and that it should be reverted to the earlier version? Hayford Peirce 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right or wrong -- that is not clear. There is certainly an inconsistency: If you start to create a definition you are asked for at most 100 characters. The same limit is given on CZ:Definitions#Format of the definition itself. However, I saw just now, that in CZ:Definitions#What are definitions in the Citizendium? 150 characters are given, also changed by James to 150, but a year ago, because of the number of words stated there. It seems to me that the original purpose was 100 characters, but of course one might think that this is oo trestrictive. Peter Schmitt 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what -- would you and James get together on this and come up with a version that is mutually satisfactory? And bring in Joe Quick or Ro or anyone else that might be interested. This is much more an Editor's sort of decision than a Constable's -- I'll be happy to do what you agree on, but I'd like to see some consensus about it. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want be a contrarian, but I think that 30 words of 5 characters each (or 150 characters) is too restrictive. Personally, I think that we should settle on 200 characters (which is equivalent to 25 words of 8 characters each) without mention of any number of words .... just 200 characters. Milton Beychok 01:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I second Milt in that we need to limit the number of characters, not words. The exact number does not matter too much, but it should be used consistently across the site. --Daniel Mietchen 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Originally the definition article stated "no more than 30 word/100 character". There seemed to clearly be something wrong with this as the average word is not just over 3 characters. Five characters is considered to be one word as I recall from my typing classes during my school days, so I changed it to read "30 words, 150 characters", taking the word limit to be normative. I had forgotten that I was the one who originally changed the wording in CZ:Definitions. I hope no one thinks I was trying to pull a fast one, as they say. Anyway, the limit needs to be clarified and I favor the longer version. James F. Perry 04:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(addendum) I just now noticed that the CZ:Definition article refers to "100 characters" further down in the article without mention of the number of words. The passage which I amended a year ago mentioned both (30 words and 100 characters). James F. Perry 04:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, when all of you eagle-eyed Citizens come to an agreement on this, we'll fix both the "Article mechanics" page AND all of the others that are inconsistent. I'll count on you people to get this done.... Hayford Peirce 04:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I just examined a sampling of definitions (total = 50), using the "random page" button as a selector. Here are the results:

less than 100 characters - 8 total (16%); 101-125 characters - 8 total; 126-150 characters - 10 total; 151-175 characters - 5 total; 176-200 characters - 7 total; 201-225 characters - 3 total; 226-250 characters - 2 total; 251-275 characters - 0 total; 276-300 characters - 1 total; 301 and over - 6 total

No attempt was made to correct for formatting characters which, in any case, were few by comparison to the total number of characters in the definition.

The median number appears to be about 150. That is, half of the definitions were less than 150 characters, and half more than that. Only about 1 in 6 came in below the 100 character "limit".

For the record, among the 50 definitions which I checked, the extremes were: 54 (Mnemonic) at the low end and 449 at the high end (article title withheld to protect the identity of the culprit).

(Now I suppose someone is going to tell me that there is a bot which can handle this type of sampling). ;-)

James F. Perry 17:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You probably had some lemma articles in your sample. But even without these exceptions, I also noticed that the length of definitions often exceeds the limit suggested. Since it may be expected that any limit will not be strictly honoured, I tend to set a lower limit, hoping that it will not be exceeded too much, something like: "The definition should have at most 100 characters (if at all possible). In exceptional cases it may have up to 150 characters." I also think that no word count should be given. Peter Schmitt 22:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent)Suggest we adopt an upper limit on characters and not specify limit on number of words. An upper limit of 200 characters seems more reasonable than 100 characters, else risk making definition too simplistic. Add exhortation to make definition as concise as practical. Specify that spaces and punctuation do not count as characters, as well as formatting symbols (list many examples of latter). Anthony.Sebastian 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The guidelines should not be bureaucratic, but brief and suggestive. So we need not worry about spaces, punctuation. "Number of characters in the displayed definition" takes care of markup (of which only links really are significant). Peter Schmitt 00:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I don't think I had any lemma articles in the sample. I was looking for such and would have removed them from the sample had I noticed. I called up the article from the "random page" button, then went to the "talk" page from where I got the definition, so I saw the article as well as the definition. They all had subpages, though I realize that lemma articles can have subpages also.

One problem I see with a deliberately low limit (100 characters) is that if it is too low, people will simply ignore it altogether, whereas if the limit is at least reasonable, they might make more of an effort to conform to it. If it is too high, then you might see a gradual drift upwards in the length of the definitions with too little effort made in the direction of succinctness.

Bottom line is: 1) I favor a limit of between 150 and 200 characters (expressed in characters only, not words, but not counting formatting characters), and; 2) the limit should be considered hortatory, but rather firmly so, and not a strict limit.

James F. Perry 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A bigger problem with my sampling is that the number of characters reported on the "history" page of the definition apparently includes the "noinclude - subpages - noinclude " stuff that precedes the actual definition. That is an extra 36 charcters added to the numbers reported on the "history" page (and above in my sample reports). That being the case, I would tend to favor the lower, 150 character limit (still hortatory, of course). Terribly sorry for the confusion. James F. Perry 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that "150 characters" (and suggesting to use less) could be the basis for consensus? Peter Schmitt 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Final re-approval of Amine gas treating/Draft is due today

Hayford, would you do the honors? Or should I ask Matt? Milton Beychok 19:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a *re-approval*, right? If so, you better ask Matt. I can't figure out how to do them. Matt says it's simple, but it doesn't look simple to me, and every time I've tried it I've messed things up. Sorry. Hayford Peirce 19:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If it looks like there are going to be *lots* of reapprovals (and I know that some of you technical people want them for your articles) you might want to collaborate with Matt on a PRECISE instruction sheet on how to do reapprovals, one that even I could understand. I'd be happy to do them -- but not if I'm simply going to spend hours first messing them up and then trying, fruitlessly, to unmess them. Hayford Peirce 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll check it out :) D. Matt Innis 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you get all that? The new subpage stuff did cause a bleep in the {{Approval}} template, so make sure not to COPY the "noinclude"subpages"noinclude" stuff from the bottom of the metadata page. How long did it take me? D. Matt Innis 20:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okie, I'll take a look at all the Recent Changes in reverse order and see if I can follow what you did. Hayford Peirce 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

notice on recent changes page

I just noticed that the notice at the top of the recent changes page still links to the "Workgroup Weeks" page. I don't think that's really appropriate anymore. The actual message exists at MediaWiki:Recentchangestext, so it takes special privileges to edit it. Could you remove that part of the message? Thanks, Joe Quick 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I got it. Good catch Joe, I'm not sure I ever read that thing ;-) D. Matt Innis 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Bujold

Looks like we allowed M. Bujold 14 months' free advertising... John Stephenson 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Geez. Well, Roger, Larry, and Stephen all took care of that and welcomed him. Not me. But I can sure kick his derriere out of here! Hayford Peirce 05:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised he was listed as an (now inactive) editor in 8 workgroups — shouldn't this alone ring some bells? --Daniel Mietchen 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I would enjoy being party to some of the editorship decisions on this wiki. John Stephenson 09:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

John, what do you think of this suggestion then? --Daniel Mietchen 10:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, what do you think about restoring his account but replacing his ad text with a brief explanation of why he was banned? The benefit of this would be that everyone could have a look at the history to learn how this could happen and, more importantly, how it could be prevented in the future. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 15:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I like this suggestion because history should be preserved as much as possible. Banned authors, and authors leaving have left traces, and one should be able to follow these traces. Unless there are legal reasons, blanking and protecting, or moving to cold storage, should be sufficient. Peter Schmitt 15:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about this in the past in similar cases, with the same considerations in mind as both of you have, and then said the hell with it -- too much work. It's easier to simply vanish 'em. However this is simply *my* opinion: why don't you post the same messages to Matt Innis -- maybe he'll agree with you and restore things as you suggest. Hayford Peirce 17:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PS -- it's not as if this character were a Prof. Jensen who had left a *mountain* of work behind him -- this character didn't contribute anything at all as far as I know, so why do we need a record of him? I think that when I went to Harvard they said that they never kicked a student out, they just asked him to take a leave for a year or so. BUT when they *did* kick someone out, they *really* did it -- they called it "expunged": they cleared the records of his existence. Supposedly. Anyway, in my opinion, the egregious Bernard falls into this category.... Hayford Peirce 17:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

approvals

Email system and natural gas are scheduled for approval today. Scarborough Castle is scheduled for tomorrow. All three should be set to go. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 13:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone is signed off and the versions scheduled to be OKed are the same ones as they *say* they are?Hayford Peirce 16:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of those. I work really long days on the weekend, so I can't keep track of things as closely when they happen between Friday night and Monday morning. --Joe (Approvals Manager) 18:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Forgotten Soldier Info Box

Hi Hayford,

I've managed to dig up some more information on The Forgotten Soldier including original publishing information, translations, ISBN's, etc, more than enough to fill up the Infobox, would it be alright to reintroduce it to the article? --Mehar Gill 00:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it *looks* good -- when I saw it, all the categories on the left were blanked out. Hayford Peirce 01:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I've re-added the InfoBox and filled all of the applicable information. --Mehar Gill 01:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As Hayford mentioned above, the entire left side is black. This is a problem with the template itself, and is no fault of yours. I'll take a look at the template and see why that happens. Drew R. Smith 01:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Drew R. Smith 02:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)