User talk:J. Noel Chiappa: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
m (Archive some more)
imported>J. Noel Chiappa
m (Archive some more)
Line 41: Line 41:


First, Noel: can you make a case for requiring the "strings" package to the citizendium tools list?  And second, I'd like to send you some interview questions for the next issue of the Citizen; would you be intetrested? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:00, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
First, Noel: can you make a case for requiring the "strings" package to the citizendium tools list?  And second, I'd like to send you some interview questions for the next issue of the Citizen; would you be intetrested? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 10:00, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
== Hi Noel! ==
I was pleasantly surprised to find we have more common interests than networking alone. Yes, my first decision to be a Wiki-refugee was in the Computer Networking Project. It wasn't so much that I kept having to explain that OSI compliance, let alone conformance, was not a requirement for IETF protocols, or that BGP is not an application layer protocol. It was, I think, being told that something was incorrect, in an IETF document of which I was a coauthor, because the editor's unnamed textbook said so. It was also the mantra of everything having seven layers, even after I cited the ISO documents on the internal organization of the network layer, management framework, routeing (ha!) framework, etc.
Not yet knowing the culture here, is it appropriate to try to develop an outline of networking topics and then start filling it in?  By and large, I wouldn't want to take any of the Wikipedia material, which was just too hacked. The articles on control and forwarding planes may be worth salvaging, once they are sprinkled with holy water to exorcise some of the persistently wrong "corrections".
Where I do think I have some Wiki material, which has value as a starting point, is in (military/strategic) intelligence and special operations. There are, for example, relatively few discussions anywhere of MASINT.  The process of intelligence analysis is another area where some politics need to be extracted.
In these and other areas, I have to sort out the rules here about using material that I may not be able to find in secondary published sources, but have been doing for a frighteningly long time. There have been a few cases of "I don't know if it's documented anywhere, but that's not what my code did."
It's surprising how much organic chemistry comes back now that I'm writing proposals for sustainable biodiesel, in a semi-closed cycle between fishing boats and seafood restaurant waste.
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 09:36, 1 May 2008 (CDT)
== Can you... ==
...take a gander at this [[CZ:Proposals/Should_we_allow_article_specific_subpages%3F]]?  make any changes that you think will make it easier to understand. Thanks [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:26, 2 May 2008 (CDT)
== How did we want to handle this? ==
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Replace_this_text_with_article_name], --[[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:33, 3 May 2008 (CDT)
== Template:Lead/Compounds ==
Yes, I seem to have done something to make the pages that include both the physical properties, and the compounds listings to have a huge pre-expand size.  I'm not sure how to avoid this tho, the way I'm currently displaying them, I have to load the whole template to access any one single data member.  When I display the entire template, with perhaps dozens of different variables, the "size" is huge...perhaps there is a better way to display?  Is there a better way to store maybe?
Perhaps if we keep the number of "member variables" (aka properties) low, we won't get hit too badly on the size?  But that might mean more types of templates: Electrical Properties Templates, or quantum properties (see {{tl|Template:Lead/Isotopes}}, or other, as yet unknown types of "properties" data templates...IDK...I'm just making it up as I go...:-)--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 00:19, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
You just gave me another idea too...but it might be a few days before I can tool around with it.--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 00:21, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
:This problem was exactly what i was thinking when I wrote the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User_talk:David_Yamakuchi&diff=100316246&oldid=100314988 first paragraph here]. I'll be interested to see what solution you come up with. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:49, 5 May 2008 (CDT)


== Strings ==
== Strings ==


Stephen says:
Stephen says:
"<blockquote>
:"Email [email protected] [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:01, 4 May 2008 (CDT)"
:Email [email protected] [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:01, 4 May 2008 (CDT)
 
</blockquote>"
FYI---[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 00:33, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
FYI---[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 00:33, 5 May 2008 (CDT)


== Fast tracking subpages ==
==More on definitions==
 
I just replyed to a couple of your questions on my talk page then remembered you like have the replies here. I'll leave them there for context but there is one other point you made that I will reply to here. That is the issue of backlogged suggestions for subpages.
 
I am wondering if the way to go to reduce the backlog for new subpages is to just promote the tab option in metadata page as much as possible. Get people creating as many subpage types as they wish. In the process of setting up tabbed subpages the users will eventually create their own CZ:subpage description and Category:Subpage, and thus, those subpages will no longer be listed in the experimental subpage category. With time we'll see which ones work and which ones bomb. Those that work can graduate to "standard subpages".  Those that don't work will just quietly disappear. This seems a little more organic and will promote the experimentation with new types of subpage without the need for a formal backing from CZ.  If nothing else a really bad idea for a subpage will get people discussing the issue, expecially if it starts to propogate.  The current problem is that the activation energy to get new subpages started not only stops tha bad ones but also the potentially great ones. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 10:12, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
:Crafting a unused subpages list based on the workgroups and a yet to be defined subpage hierarchy (hierarchy based on ''more general'' to ''very specific'' subpage usage) was the way i was thinking too. I have no solution in mind but this is a problem worth solving. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 11:20, 5 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Locators and identifiers ==
 
Do you have something on hand that would address this function decomposition in addresses, which I originally learned from you? It would help articles on addressing and routing, and it seemed reasonable, rather than hunt for cites, just to go to the source. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:08, 6 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== subpage or metadata ==
 
The more I think about this, the more I think it might be better on the metadata page.  Initially, I was thinking the metadata page might not be so great since it can be a scary place to edit.  This is probably groundless though since all authors here have to be familiar with it and it's not going away anytime soon. Certainly it makes the coding a lot easier and simpler. This an important point since it is already hard enough to navigate through the subpages template hierarchy. Also, I hate that <nowiki><noinclude>{{Subpages}}</noinclude></nowiki> code at the top of the definition subpage. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:51, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
 
: I think you've already reversed yourself on this (?), Chris, but I wouldn't like that--even the regulars who are reasonably comfortable with metadata pages wouldn't like to see it there.  Is there really any substantive advantage to having it there as opposed to on a subpage? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:20, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:: Filling out the metadata page isn't that bad, although I am still playing with the indexing sequences.  The real challenge: is there a way to open an existing page and edit it directly, rather than having something tell me I need to change something and open it for me? Is there a magic word? <small>...said</small> [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz |Howard C. Berkowitz ]] ([[User_talk:Howard C. Berkowitz |talk]]) {{#if:15:29, 9 May 2008|15:29, 9 May 2008|}}
 
::: Yes, just go ahead as you do in wikipedia with no subpages template. If you do use the subpages template it ''will'' make you dot the i's and cross the t's. That's the way computers like it. :) Or is there something else you are referring to? Part of the reason for the many preloaded links is to ensure that the page titles are accurate.  One typo and the subpages temaplte cannot function correctly. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:36, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:::: Example: I've been rethinking the collating sequence for the titles of related articles, such as the intelligence series. To change the sorting order, I assume I need to get into the metadata page and change it there. So far, I haven't found any obvious manual  way to get back to the raw metadata page. Another possibility would be adding or changing a category (e.g., I've been putting intelligence into military, but politics, electronics, economics, and other categories may make sense). For that matter, is 3 categories a hard limit? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 15:47, 9 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== anchorencode: problem ==
So close, but so far.  I want to have "Cell (biology)" in a url but the anchor trick gives me "Cell_.28biology.29". Click on the ''add definition'' to see the problem (also see [[Template:R#Example_of_use]]).
{{r|Cell (biology)}}
{{r|Cat's whisker}}
{{r|New York, New York}}
What I need is something more similar to <nowiki>{{BASEPAGENAMEE}}</nowiki> but that trick is not available to me in this case.  So is there something else, similar to anchor, but changes  "Cell (biology)" to  "Cell_(biology)"? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:24, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
 
By the way I can do this fine when I'm within the cluster, see the red link in the to do list at [[Talk:Cell_%28biology%29]].  The problem is if i want to do it from outside the cluster using the parameter from the {{tl|r}} template. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:49, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
 
Is there any reason not to use <nowiki>{{urlencode:{{{1}}}}}}</nowiki>? It seems to solve the problem. Is there an advantage to using<nowiki> {{anchorencode:</nowiki> as opposed to <nowiki>{{urlencode:</nowiki>? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:56, 8 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Can you make a template out this, please? ==
 
Noel, [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Milton_Beychok/Sandbox this] is a table of the equivalence of various units of pressure, which I have in my sandbox. Can you make it into a template so that it can be inserted into various articles at the point where an author places this tag: <nowiki>{{pressure}}</nowiki> ?
 
The table came from Wikipedia and I was a significant contributor in formatting and revising it on Wikipedia. I have re-formatted it and simplified it a bit for porting here to CZ.
 
If you cannot make it into a template, do you think that Chris Day might be able to do it? Thanks in advance, - [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:24, 11 May 2008 (CDT)
 
Hey, Noel, have you had a chance to think about this yet? Can you make the template? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:59, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
 
: {{tl|pressure}}--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 10:40, 12 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Need help==
Can you make head or tail of this, it's a strange thing I discovered when transcluding the definition subpage. In the current form the definition starts on a new line after the noinclude tags. To cut to the chase, the line break is transcluded in some cases but not others. For example:
 
'''<nowiki>* Biology: {{:Biology/Definition}}</nowiki>''' gives:
* Biology: {{:Biology/Definition}}
 
'''<nowiki>* Biology: {{#ifexist: Biology/Definition|{{:Biology/Definition}} }}</nowiki>''' gives:
* Biology: {{#ifexist: Biology/Definition|{{:Biology/Definition}} }}
 
Note that there is no line break when I transclude the definition subpage within an expression (Please correct my lingo here, I'm not sure how to express this in english). Why the difference? I also note that I can get rid of the line break by putting the whole of the first example in code tags. So:
 
'''<nowiki><code>* Biology: {{:Biology/Definition}}</code></nowiki>''' appears as:
 
<code>* Biology: {{:Biology/Definition}}</code>
 
Can you explain what is going on here? This might be a problem in the future for using the definition subpage unless the definition starts immediately after the noinclude tags or it is always between tags or within an expression when we transclude it.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 11:49, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:Same thing happens in wikipedia. So here is the thing, if we're going with the definition subpages rather than the metadata route should we code it as follows:
 
<code><nowiki><noinc1ude>{{Subpages}}</noinc1ude><!--</nowiki></code><br><code><nowiki>-->Definition here.</nowiki></code>
 
:Or go with the following:
 
<code><nowiki><noinc1ude>{{Subpages}}</noinc1ude>Definition here.</nowiki></code>
 
:Rather than:
 
<code><nowiki><noinc1ude>{{Subpages}}</noinc1ude></nowiki></code><br><code><nowiki>Definition here.</nowiki></code>
 
:In this way we can transclude the definition in anywhere. Any thoughts, apart from stick it in the metadata page ;) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:53, 14 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== CZ:Unchecklisted Articles ==
 
Hi Noel. I noticed in the recent changes that you had edited the CZ article, and I was curious as to what it was about. I'm still unfamiliar with <s>some</s> many of the processes and policies involved in CZ, so I wonder if you could take a look at the two articles I've created so far: [[Belfast]] and [[Belleek Pottery Ltd]] to check if I've done everything correctly. The thing I noticed was that the article on Belleek china has no template displayed at the top of it (though it's displayed on the talk page) whereas the article on Belfast has the template on both the main article page and the talk page.
 
My suspicion is that it has something to do with the 'copied from Wikipedia' flag: I copied my own text from the article I had created in WP, whereas I wrote the start of the Belfast article from scratch.
 
Let me know if I've done anything wrong, or omitted something I could have done. Cheers, --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 12:18, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== sub-subpages ==
 
Noel, is there a simple way to call up a list of all "sub"-''files''?  For instance, if there is an article: [[Iron]] and I would like a list of every page that is "Iron/*.*", can that be simply specified? (please forgive my having to lean on DOS commands to communicate here, but what I'm looking for here is basically "'''dir'''" :-)--[[User:David Yamakuchi|David Yamakuchi]] 14:44, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
 
: Click on 'Special pages' in the menu on the left, and then click on 'Prefix index' and type in "Iron" in the box. Then select your article namespace option. --[[User:Mal McKee|Mal McKee]] 15:21, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Changed R template to accommodate disambiguation ==
 
I just made a modification to the {{tl|r}} template to show how this could work.
 
Consider [[Reel]], it is a redirect to [[Reel (disambiguation)]] where three meanings are described one each for dance, music and textiles. None of these three currently have articles but all have a definition page. In this case [[Reel/Definition]] also exists as well as the [[Reel]] redirect. However, i have changed the R tempalte code such that it will ignore the Reel/Definnition page IF a disambiguation page exists. Instead it will point to the disambiguation page. Thus:
 
<nowiki>{{r|reel}}</nowiki> will look as follows: {{r|reel}}
 
Note that the link to [[Reel]] is purple indicating that it is a redirect. An author should notice this ambiguity and choose the correct link. Depending on the context this would be one of:
 
<nowiki>{{r|Reel (dance)}}
{{r|Reel (music)}}
{{r|Reel (textiles)}}</nowiki> that would show as:
{{r|Reel (dance)}}
{{r|Reel (music)}}
{{r|Reel (textiles)}}
 
Depending on the context the bracketed diambiguation might not have to be used.  For example, if the link is on the related articles subpage for sewing the author might prefer to use the following format:
 
<nowiki>{{r|Reel (textiles)}|Reel}}</nowiki>
{{r|reel (textiles)|Reel}}
 
It is possible to have the R template manage another complex example. Consider the scenario where the [[Tux]] article exists as one of our approved articles AND has a [[Tux (disambiguation)|disambiguation page]] as well as a useful [[Tux/Definition]] subpage. In such a scenario the Tux definition might be expected to be overlooked and point to the disambiguation page similar to the coded example below:
 
* [[Tux|Tux]] <span style="font-size:0.8em;">[<nowiki></nowiki>[[Tux/Related Articles|r]]<nowiki></nowiki>]</span>: ''<font color=#666666>Can have several meanings, summarized at</font> [[Tux (disambiguation)]]''
 
I have avoided this by coding such that the Foo/Definition subpage is only avoided when there is no metadata template for the basepagename Foo. Thus, in this Tux example:
 
<nowiki>{{r|Tux}}</nowiki> would look as follows:
{{r|Tux}}
 
Let me know what you think, don't understand and would like to tweek to suit your desired model. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:19, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:If your goal is to deal with the problem like Tux then I'd say the best bet is to undo the last change I made to {{tl|R}} where it assays for the existance of a cluster and still acknowledges defs like Tux/Definition.  If nothing else it will be easier for authors to notice the article names that have a disambiguation pages. Do you want a category for all article names with a disambiguation page? I can get the subpages template to add it to the talk page of such articles. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:40, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::I just changed the R template such that Tux and like articles will point to the disambiguation page. So now the last example with Tux above will not be as it used to look!, and will now make no sense.
::With regard to categories, another useful one might be to locate the pages that have an R template pointing to a disambiguation page.  The advantage of this category is that one can catch some disambiguation pages that do not have a corresponding article in citizendium (if they exist). It will also let us find the R templates that need to be adjusted to locate their more accurate home. So examples like <nowiki>{{R|Tux}}</nowiki> can then be pipelinked to<nowiki> {{R|Tux (Linux)|Tux}}</nowiki>. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:47, 15 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==!!!!==
Hilarious, i am editing the Template:Def right now! And I'm going to rewrite the text in the CZ:Definition so there is no temptation to do what it suggests. :) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
:The trigger for me was reading the CZ:Definition page and realising that a specific template was actually quicker than writing the whole <nowiki>{{:Biology/Definition}}</nowiki> term.  So clearly there was no reason ever to do it that way. The side effect occurred to me when I was writing {{tl|Def}}. Nice to see all the def writing on the recent changes, certainly this has got people thinking and the Related Articles pages are starting to be used more too. The community heard a penny drop somewhere. Maybe the "figure head titles" will be next? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 12:41, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==R again==
I had always assumed that was standard when a template started with a *, ! or ;.  I have come across that a few times and it just became another one of those mines you have to navigate. I was never surprised by it as a result of my trial and error approach to writing the templates. As they say, ignorance is bliss. :) [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 13:54, 16 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==move bot==
Since it might be some time before the move function is automated for clusters possibly someone could write a script that a bot can use?  Not ideal, but at least it would make things faster and easier. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:10, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== [[Eduzendium Testimonials]] ==
Cheers --[[User:John J. Dennehy|John J. Dennehy]] 16:30, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Lists, catalogues, related articles, and how to format them ==
 
Hi Noel,
 
Hayford and I are having a problem over at [[Science fiction]].  Specifically, when is an organised list a catalog as opposed to Related Articles list, and more importantly, how on earth do we format 'em?
 
Here's what were going for:  [[Science fiction/Related Articles]].  Is there a good way to organise this?  indent this?  Note what happened when Hayford added 'Frankenstein' under Mary Shelley, and also what I mess I made trying to place 'A Wrinkle in Time' under Madeleine L'Engle.
 
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 17:36, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:Hi, Noel, I think I've got things straightened out -- BUT, I don't know how to put the red link and definition baloney back on the three Chulz Voine books I just added. Could you be a pal and do that? I'm sure Aleta and I will prove to be quick learners and will be able to mimic your decisive edits.... Thanks! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 18:24, 19 May 2008 (CDT)
 
Noel, see my reply on Aleta's talk page.  I think I have made R more generally useful with out breaking its current role on all the RA pages. Its a bit of an ugly fix but it might work OK if indenting and numbering are not its primary function. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:04, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==indent==
Good idea for having the "indent=" as a nbsp by defualt.  Not sure why it currently comes out as if in a box. I was thinking indent was too long as well. Lets see if aleta can come up with something more user friendly. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 07:36, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:Well i biked to work and realised the simple fix was to move the space.  It used to be<nowiki> {{{indent|*}}} [[link]]</nowiki> and is now  <nowiki>{{{indent|* }}}[[link]]</nowiki>.  Now I have been playing with your version <nowiki>{{{3|* }}}[[link]]</nowiki> which i like a lot since there is no field name to worry about. But the problem here is that the second variable might be rarer than the indent. What do you think of having the second variable as the indent and when the name variation is used we need to define the indent, i.e. <nowiki>{{r|Foo (bar)|*|Foo}}</nowiki> instead of  <nowiki>{{r|Foo (bar)|Foo}}</nowiki>. The alternative is that we have to use the second variable when we want to indent which seems counter intuitive, i.e. <nowiki>{{r|Foo|Foo|*}}</nowiki>. Any thoughts? byt he way, I have no idea what the formatting issues are with the double indent (**) at the front.  I usually don't try and figure those things out (as in I can't) and just try and work around them. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:53, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::Cool that <nowiki>{{r|Name||**}}</nowiki>  work fine, i didn't think to try it. Do you think that <nowiki>{{r|Foo (bar)||Foo}}</nowiki> will work too? I think indent will be used a lot more than the second name so it would be nice to be able to write something as simple as <nowiki>{{r|Name|**}}</nowiki>.  I wonder if the double line will cause confusion? My four hours sleep is not what it seems. I normally get at least six hours but broken into to two. I normally crash out while reading stories to the kids and sleep for about three hours.  Then I have my nocturnal activity followed by another three- four hours.  [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 10:19, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:::Good point about having to track down all the <nowiki>{{r|Foo (bar)|Foo}}</nowiki>'s.  I'm definitely going to let those sleeping dogs lie.  I'm going to change R to your streamlined version and let Aleta know.  I'm sure she'll be happy with no field name. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 10:35, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::::Great additions to the R/Doc.  I had not thought of that, too focused on the indenting problem. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 11:17, 20 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Templates are easy ==
 
... as easy as anything you are used to...
Anyway, I have created {{tl|Gla}} and described what I am aiming at. If you could help with that, this would be very cool! In the meantime, I will try to draft a basis for {{tl|Dabdef}}. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:16, 21 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:Thanks for your help with dabdef. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 19:24, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Preload==
 
Can you preload the contents of a template to a page that already exists, i.e. using Template:DeleteRedir for the cleanup?  That has never been possible using my computer (mac). [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:54, 21 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:I suspect the time it worked was for one that had already been deleted? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:05, 21 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Defs with a slash==
Shouldn't GNU/Linux/Definition live at Linux as GNU/Linux redirects there? Certain the Subpages template pukes it out as Linux is not a recognised subpage. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 22:31, 21 May 2008 (CDT)
 
Another thing.  Anything you move on that list at ''Category:Move def'', it is fine '''not''' to add the speedy template to the ''Template:Def Article name''. Note the white garden example that gives me a delete link after the move; <nowiki>{{move def|white garden}}</nowiki> gives:
:{{move def|white garden}}
[[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 00:24, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
: Took me a while to sort out that that meant! (That you saw a delete link once the def had been moved.) [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 08:50, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::Oops, sorry, i deleted it by mistake when i went through to get rid of the red links in Category:Move def and thus destroyed my example. Do you get what i meant though?  No need to add the speedy delete as I can see which ones are ready to delete at the category page. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 09:58, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Disambiguation==
So what's up with [[Half-life]] example, is that the way we're doing it?  Is will that be a redirect? Also should the template go below the subpages otherwise the subpages header will jump up and down as you navigate from the article to the subpages and back. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 10:14, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Faraday's law ==
 
What did you to the definition of [[Faraday's law]]? Earlier today Daniel did the same to energy. I told him that it looks ''blöd'' (german for daft) on my user page and that is where the business with redirecting and moving energy started.--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:20, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Anchorcode==
Yes, it is anchor code problem but the urlencode is even worse.  We'll have to edit those type manullly. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 16:05, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Redirects==
Thanks for the answer. I understand that if someone uses alternate spellings, he/she will get the results for that. However, I am afraid that if they only use one spelling that is different enough from others, they won't even be aware of other articles.--[[User:Gary Giamboi|Gary Giamboi]] 20:20, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== This is part of it ==
 
[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Augustin-Louis_Cauchy#Approval No responses from anyone interested in the article]. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 07:39, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Talk page fate during a move==
Could you summarize this based on your experiences moving articles?  I'm seeing that talk from a disambiguation {basename} get redirected. Do we mormally delete talk pages for a pagename move not involving a disambiguation?  Or is it best to keep them as redirects, especially if they are linked from other pages? Any other scenarios you can think of? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:20, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
:That makes total sense.  In that case I should add a what links here link so it is possible to make a decision on the talk page.  Alternatively just have all talk page redirected regardless? The latter will make it more user friendly. I'll think this over and see what is possible with the move template.[[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 15:37, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==planets==
Are all eight going to xxx (planet)? Saturn and Earth probably should.  That leaves Jupiter. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 17:10, 23 May 2008 (CDT)
:I guessed there would be something but I'm not up on all my Roman Gods. I like the plan for the move template i.e. it only function on the metadata page. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 07:51, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== help needed in [[French words in English]] ==
Hi, Chris and Noel (alphabetical order!), could one or both of you take a look a the [[French words in English]] article and see if you could figure out a scheme to index the list of words with a TOC so that we can go directly to the '''A's''', for instance, or the '''T's'''. We're now at the point where there are so many words that it's beginning to become quite tedious to scroll up and down a gazillion times a day. Many thanks! (PS, you don't have to index '''all''' the letters -- just the first couple, so that I can see how you did it: I'll then take care of all the rest....) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 11:59, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
:Many thanks! I saw all the different edits you made in order to get it to work. Wow!  Eventually I'll try playing around with the formatting somewhat -- in a sense, it's gonna look strange to have 26 (or somewhat fewer) letters just descending the top of the page all by themselves. Maybe something will suggest itself one of these days.... Thanks again! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:09, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
::I wuz just mulling those possibilities over -- but now you've told me how to '''do''' it! Thanks -- I'll play around with it for a while.... [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:42, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== linking to redirects ==


Oh, I see now. I had just assumed that the page had been moved/renamed, and that like got missed. Ah well. By the way, I seem to have run down my big TODO list. Any other jobs for me? [[User:John Dvorak|John Dvorak]] 19:14, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
==disambig box==
However you think it should work--make it work like that.  --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 20:01, 24 May 2008 (CDT)
==More on definitions==
I thought about this, and I think someone else thought about it also, but what is your opinion on using [[Template:H:title]]? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:47, 25 May 2008 (CDT)
I thought about this, and I think someone else thought about it also, but what is your opinion on using [[Template:H:title]]? --[[User:Robert W King|Robert W King]] 13:47, 25 May 2008 (CDT)


Line 316: Line 57:
... at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur AstronomerAmateur]. Although it's completely tongue-in-cheek, it frames the problems with Wikipedia with razor-sharp precision. I'm glad you jumped ship and came here! -[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 17:47, 25 May 2008 (CDT)
... at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur AstronomerAmateur]. Although it's completely tongue-in-cheek, it frames the problems with Wikipedia with razor-sharp precision. I'm glad you jumped ship and came here! -[[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 17:47, 25 May 2008 (CDT)


== Disambig formatting ==
==documentation==
 
Hi Noel, something seems to have gone wrong on [[CZ:List of words with multiple uses]] - independent of whether I use r or rpl. Please take a look and comment. Thanks! -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]]
:What I meant here was the colour coding of the links to the few existing disambiguation pages. But I am also wondering whether we should disallow definitions for disambiguation pages or change the "Add brief definition" text to something like "Please do not add a definition here; use the definitions of the sub-meanings instead". Besides, I am wondering whether the disambig page itself would profit from consistent use of the r template (just tried it with [[Energy (disambiguation)|Energy]]). -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 08:14, 26 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::Chris has already adapted the colours. As for using the r template, I am much in favour of it and will ask Larry to comment. Or should we include this into the implementation issues of your proposal? I'd rather not, as this might slow things down there. Also, please take a look [[User talk:John Dvorak#More_TODO|here]] and comment if necessary. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 11:10, 27 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Complex disambiguation and redirect pages...stop me before I alias again ==
 
Trying to follow your suggestions, I got very energetic with redirects to [[U.S. foreign military assistance organizations]]. Note that a number of redirects are to subheads in the article.
 
Further, when I redirected MAC, the abbreviation for Military Assistance Command (a subhead), I realized MAC was ambiguous, and tried my hand at disambiguation.
 
Have I totally confused things, or am I within the scope of licit conduct for the Wikideities?
 
[[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:38, 27 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== dabdef ==
 
I think that the only source of the disambiguation message is at {{tl|dabdef}}.  I rewrote it a bit to accommodate a situation where the disambiguation page does not currently exist. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 14:44, 27 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:More thoughts on this.  Is there any point in keeping definition pages that have an equivalent disambiguation page? For example, ''Foo/Definition'' and ''Foo (disambiguation)''.  There are two options. To add the dabdef to all Foo/Definition pages with a disambiguation page or just delete them.  I favor the latter since they appear to serve no real purpose.  To stop them polluting the definition category i have adjusted the subpages template to put them in the [[:Category:Dabdef Subpages]]. For an example see [[Jupiter/Definition]]. Any thoughts on this? [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 13:37, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::I would go for the latter option, too. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 13:46, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
 
:::If we go that route, we can use the Dabdef Subpages category as a guide to find the ones that need to be deleted/dealt with.  Assuming we can get these categories to update properly.  It appears that the pages never update unless there is an edit to the page.  I suspect someone has turned off the function that search for changes in the categories and reassigns the page.  I can see that might need a lot of computing time, especially as the number fo pages increases. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 13:48, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
 
::::Bear in mind that [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Dabdef]]  will only get the ones that have the dabdef template.  There will be others that do not.  That category will catch any /Definition that exists with a disambiguation page, as long as there is a subpages template. Possibly it does not matter if they exist as they will never be called, I've already made sure that the subpages template does not categorize them as useful definitions and that is all that really matters. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 21:31, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== [[JavaScript]] ==
 
Deleted along with its metadata template. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 19:26, 27 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==Ju-on (呪怨)==
Well, thanks. Actually this film series's titling's a nightmare because of all the alternative titles (and that's before we get into [[CZ:Romanization/Japanese|romanization]] - Ju-on, Juon, Ju On, Ju on... [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 04:22, 28 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Disambigs and page naming ==
 
Hi Noel, I seem to have created some irritation (and resulting feedback) with my disambig testing (a kind of reaction that I largely prefer to no reaction, but dunno whether that's good or bad for the proposal right now), and so please take a(nother) look [[Talk:Energy (science)#Name?|here]], [[Talk:Language (linguistics)#Language articles|here]] and [[User talk:Chris Day#Disambigs and writing levels|here]]. Thanks, and sorry for causing trouble. -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 05:11, 29 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== I'm dizzy from all this activity ==
 
Don't you think that [[Vertigo]] is gonna need a disambig page etc one of these days? Surely the Hitchcock flick will turn up.... (Maybe I'll do it for the Write-a-Thon.) [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 14:02, 29 May 2008 (CDT)
 
== Moving clusters ==
 
Hi Noel,
I try to move all pages associated with the article I move but I have found no simple way to ensure that. Is anybody working on the cluster move code? Ideally, that would automatically indicate what subpages there are, and move them all by default (perhaps optionally excluding some, e.g. the talk page in disambig cases). I would volunteer as a tester (using just pages I created myself, with no further contributors, to avoid confusion). -- [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 02:29, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
:Since you mention it, I have made a start on making a template that gives ALL the right links for doing a move more efficiently.  It's still in the works though. It is far from ready but can be seen at {{tl|move}}. See some discussion at [[User_talk:Chris_Day#Template:_Def]] and [[User_talk:Chris_Day#Move_template.2C_etc]]. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 02:43, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
 
==HELP!==
Noel--Can you please move [[Victoria of the United Kingdom]] to Queen Victoria
and [[Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom]] to Elizabeth II
We had a newbie come in who ignored all our long discussions and moved  things around. GRRR. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 14:03, 31 May 2008 (CDT)


== Biggest page ==
Ah, that would be [[Nepal/Catalogs/Tourist attractions]] via [[Special:Longpages]]. I don't know how many of those can be split up, but I find it interesting what gets the most attention here. :) [[User:John Dvorak|John Dvorak]] 12:42, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
== Alphatbet ==
As you requested, m'lord, I have broached the topic of moving the letters to a more disambiguated page. I'm not at all sure of what is required for this. I assume this is to trivial for a proposal, but it seems like there should be another obstacle. Let me know. [[User:John Dvorak|John Dvorak]] 16:31, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
:Hrm... I just noticed something. Even when you move the old metadata page to the new one, there still exists a redirect from the original spot. I ''could'' go through and speedydelete those, but I'm wondering if it's worth it? Will it do any harm to leave them? This is sure making me want that move bot :). Hey, could it be set in the bot so that if you move a metadata or approval page, it speedydeletes the old one? Just some food for thought. [[User:John Dvorak|John Dvorak]] 17:46, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
::Yeah, not a big deal. It'll just be nice when it ''does'' get here. By the way, where's all that work you promised me with all the astronomy articles? :) [[User:John Dvorak|John Dvorak]] 21:55, 1 June 2008 (CDT)
==re:WP Info==
Nope! Pure coincidence.  Those were the only articles that had pretty much stayed pretty much as I wrote them. Although I ''was'' clicking the wp box for them (I might have accidentally forgotten to on a few though). [[User:Marielle Fields Newsome|Marielle Fields Newsome]] 08:09, 2 June 2008 (CDT)
==documentation==
Are you going to incorporate Robert Kings template into the preload of Doc? I have to admit I have not used his template for any of the documentation pages I have written.  Mine usually evolve with time as I write notes to myself. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 11:08, 2 June 2008 (CDT)
Are you going to incorporate Robert Kings template into the preload of Doc? I have to admit I have not used his template for any of the documentation pages I have written.  Mine usually evolve with time as I write notes to myself. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 11:08, 2 June 2008 (CDT)


Revision as of 10:34, 4 June 2008


So, Noel, as long as you're checking out dawgs and stuff...

...could you have a read through of Miniature Fox Terrier? Thanks! Aleta Curry 03:07, 13 April 2008 (CDT)

checklist term; keep or reinvent?

OK, I'm in two minds about this. Since we are talking about a subset of the metadata functionality (the other being management of approval status) maybe we should keep this term? One change that would make sense would be to have the pagename and variant included in the checklist. The only reason they were kept separate is that they were not part of the original checklist. I added those two later and did not want to confuse people who were already familiar with the old checklist. I also want to have the pagename as a distinct entity since it was critical it got filled in. Now we have the automatic error checks and better instructions (not to mention preloaded text for a new metadata page) I think they can all be lumped together.

Back to the name. Possibly we could call it Checklist metadata vs Approval metadata rather than Metadata content? Chris Day 21:48, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

I'll check the forum re: by field. I agree lets mull over the metdata format and nomenclature. If we're going to make changes we might as well make a lot all at once. We can use out recent experience to tighten it up and possibly make it more user friendly. While you're at it, let's think about any major improvements we can make. Your perspective is very different to mine since you are seeing it with fresh eyes. Any other things you can think of while you are at it, besides the by field? Chris Day 22:04, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

your advice please...

I have some notes stored on Guantanamo medical care. You and I discussed it a bit within the last week or so. I have come across some new developments. And I would like your advice.

I am still trying to adapt to the different standards here. Articles here may require a higher level of scholarship. That is a good thing. But it may also require a greater level of interpretation. I am having a bit of trouble with this aspect. In my online comments prior to working on that other big wiki I didn't shy away from intellectually honest interpretation. But, on the other big wiki, I got out of the habit of doing so, trying to let the facts speak for themselves, to avoid challenges over POV.

Some of the feedback I am getting here seems to be telling me I should include a measure of interpretation, to provide context, and improve readability.

I think this recent article erodes the assertions that Guantanamo captives have received good health care.

  • Joby Warrick. Detainees Allege Being Drugged, Questioned: U.S. Denies Using Injections for Coercion, Washington Post, Tuesday, April 22, 2008, p. A01. Retrieved on 2008-03-01. “Nusairi, now free in Saudi Arabia, was unable to learn what drugs were injected before his interrogations. He is not alone in wondering: At least two dozen other former and current detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere say they were given drugs against their will or witnessed other inmates being drugged, based on interviews and court documents.”


So, do you think I have that right? Should I try to allow a limited measure of interpretation into an article about medical care at Guantanamo?

Thanks! George Swan 18:49, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

Two things

First, Noel: can you make a case for requiring the "strings" package to the citizendium tools list? And second, I'd like to send you some interview questions for the next issue of the Citizen; would you be intetrested? --Robert W King 10:00, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Strings

Stephen says:

"Email [email protected] Stephen Ewen 14:01, 4 May 2008 (CDT)"

FYI---David Yamakuchi 00:33, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

More on definitions

I thought about this, and I think someone else thought about it also, but what is your opinion on using Template:H:title? --Robert W King 13:47, 25 May 2008 (CDT)

I just had to tell you I laughed out loud

... at AstronomerAmateur. Although it's completely tongue-in-cheek, it frames the problems with Wikipedia with razor-sharp precision. I'm glad you jumped ship and came here! -Eric M Gearhart 17:47, 25 May 2008 (CDT)

documentation

Are you going to incorporate Robert Kings template into the preload of Doc? I have to admit I have not used his template for any of the documentation pages I have written. Mine usually evolve with time as I write notes to myself. Chris Day 11:08, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Elizabeth II

Hi Noel, I'm going to need editor approval to delete this one. --D. Matt Innis 19:56, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Got it and did it. It's all yours! --D. Matt Innis 07:00, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

TlDoc

Hopefully you have a short answer for this problem. note the tag at the bottom and the fact that the first title does not format correctly (the header you see in that example, that looks like an intro between = marks, i added as a way to force the TOC look correct). I assume I have to have each title in the /doc without the header markup (==Title== etc.), but can i still use a TOC after removing the headers? Chris Day 13:42, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

Needles in a haystack

After seeing this disaster it reminded me that having that template is a horrible but unavoidable idea. But at the time I did not really think about using the format Template:Metadata/Basename. Possibly there was a reason for not doing that, but it's not obvious to me right now. Should we consider such a move, I know, what a job, but if we don't do it now finding templates will be like looking for a needle in a haystack. With a Template:Metadata prefix at least the others will not be interspersed within the metadata ones. Any thoughts? I assume you have already experienced this problem when looking for templates to add to the template page. Chris Day 22:27, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:J._Noel_Chiappa&oldid=412307"