Welcome, David, to our great experiment...well, time will tell how great. --Larry Sanger 16:44, 29 October 2006 (CST)
Hi David, could I trouble you for a question?
David, I started in on the Biology article listed on the Main page. I did demolition because it was not workable and added a couple of lines and a good (I think) external link (AIBS Virtual Library). But I can't seem to make it CZ live even though I put "[[Category:CZ live]]" on the bottom of the page. Can you help? Nancy
David, I'm going to have to ask you to remove the comments you've placed on a subpage. The reason for this is to keep the user page space fairly "neat" and presentable for readers. We will have a separate wiki--a successor of the Textop-hosted CZ "planning wiki"--where you can have such material. Thanks --Larry Sanger 02:29, 1 November 2006 (CST)
thanks for welcoming
Supten 01:52, 6 November 2006 (CST)
No problem at all. I check this sometimes. --Raphaël Walther 10:23, 9 November 2006 (CST)
David, I see you are on-line too. Good morning. Could you assist me please? I've been trying to move that second image needed comment into a sppot on the page for a future jpeg, and I keep messing it up. I just made some kind of inadverdant text box. Can you help? thanks, nancy
Slow progress in biology, but progress. Could you kindly read biology talk page (discussion) and respond? Thanks, Nancy
Category:Biology Workgroup (Top)
- Sorry, I was not clear in the question...I was thinking to add tags in some articles, but I am not sure yet. Please forget this question. Thank you. --Versuri 06:49, 25 November 2006 (CST)
The long tail
Do not worry about people working on apparently obscure articles. There is a phrase in statistics and the The Long Tail. WP and CZ work by using the long tail. The Tail, (The obscure articles) are actually more important than the head. (Top articles) In addition, the top listed, head, articles are generally ok, not great, but ok; where as the tail is full of nonsense and rubbish that needs improved ASAP.
Many thanks for your input, all absolutely right. I've contacted Julia Buckingham about the article to get images, articles, and hopefully her support and involvement(or one of her deputies)Gareth Leng 07:32, 10 December 2006 (CST)
The practice in WP is that thumbnails of the cover are fair use, & I think the same would apply here. we can add their status re Open access, but we would have to check every 6 months. I'd suggest eliminating the "indexed in:" from all of them--concentration on that seems a little old-fashioned. Obviously all biomed journals are in PubMed, & chem in CAS, etc.
- Not quite true, as I've become acutely aware. PubMed have their own criteria for accepting journals; for example there are 14 chiropractic journals, only one of which to my knowledge is indexed by them
I'd suggest eliminating an historical list of all the editors, except the first and any famous ones thereafter.
I'd similarly suggest not including all the current editorial board.
WP doesn't do this but we can find the most cited articles with WebofScience, which won't be available to all our readers.
- Ideally I'd like to see us establish an acceptable model and then devolve it to the Journal editors themselves to maintain and update. There are 6000 journals in PubMed alone; if we can get a significant number of these on board I think the spinoff benefits to CZ will be enormous.
Gareth Leng 04:02, 11 December 2006 (CST)
Horizontal gene transfer
David G, please look at HGT
and give an opinion/advice on its approval worthiness please in the talk page. David Tribe 07:15, 15 January 2007 (CST)
copy edit note
the list of journals should not be deleted Robert Tito | Talk 18:48, 18 February 2007 (CST) They are not mine, I saw somebody working on that file, that is why I asked. Robert Tito | Talk 18:53, 18 February 2007 (CST)
ah, i'll zap it. I was just tinkering. Thanks though :) -- Sarah Tuttle 18:55, 18 February 2007 (CST)
Hi David, after the initial creation of the subject work groups back in December, I set out to tag CZ articles about chemistry with the Chemistry Workgroup tag. My purpose was simply to stake out the scope of our editorial charge so that we may know what there is to manage. Since the decision to wipe the Wpedia content, most of those articles only modified by the addition of the Chemistry Workgroup category correctly deserve the BSD tag. Thanks! --William Weaver 19:02, 18 February 2007 (CST)