User talk:Larry Sanger/Archive 9

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Support Citizendium Box

That really ought be changed around about daily - different placement, different text, different background color, etc. After a few views, the brain largely just filters it out, like its supposed to do. But keep it changing and the filtering does not happen. Let's not filter out potential support! Stephen Ewen 12:56, 29 December 2007 (CST)

Well, I see that the *goal* changed a couple of days ago. Then, for a while, the original goal reappeared. Then disappeared for good. And suddenly about 1,050 new bucks appeared. But I agree, maybe the box *should* be moved around. A perfect example is how my brain has been filtering out the Special Character Icon bar all this time -- it's right in front of me and yet up till now it's been essentially invisible.... Hayford Peirce 13:18, 29 December 2007 (CST)

If you can move it around and change colors, etc., without it looking cheezy or jarring, that would be great. I am not going to expend the time, since it would likely not make very much difference. After all, if you're here often enough that the box fades into the background, then you've seen the message, and you've made your decision whether to contribute or not. Perhaps for the regulars it would be just obnoxious if the box kept insistently calling attention to itself. --Larry Sanger 07:04, 30 December 2007 (CST)

I noticed that the box looks fine on 1280 x Y resolutions, but not so much on 1028 x Y. If someone maybe could do some formatting for that it might be nice. Aaron Schulz 22:46, 6 January 2008 (CST)

For this sort of minor thing I wouldn't mind if anyone with sysop permissions were to fiddle with it. I've got a few hundred bucks to add to the total, but we'll wait to add it... --Larry Sanger 22:56, 6 January 2008 (CST)

Need any help?

I'm a business management student; let me know if there's any business-type stuff I could help you with. This project is really cool, and I hope it succeeds. Jonathan Beshears 15:38, 6 January 2008 (CST)

Well, what sort of "business-type stuff" do you think you could help us with? Let me know by e-mail ( --Larry Sanger 22:27, 6 January 2008 (CST)

"Criticisms" section on company articles

Larry, please see Talk:Apple_Inc.#Criticisms; and User_talk:Hugo_Voisard#Criticism_sections. One thing which I think is a discredit to WP is that they have these excessive "dirty laundry" lists on the article pages of corporations which I don't believe should be a part of our style here at CZ. I thought I'd defer this to you because I think this issue had been brought up many moons ago. --Robert W King 18:27, 6 January 2008 (CST)

OK, very good. I think excessive dirty laundry is unnecessary, but I have a hard time censoring it per se. --Larry Sanger 22:29, 6 January 2008 (CST)


Are you really the only member or is this out of date? Aaron Schulz 21:08, 6 January 2008 (CST)

There used to be other members, Aaron. Of course, this is something for me to worry about. Thanks for asking. --Larry Sanger 22:26, 6 January 2008 (CST)
OK, just wondering, as it is now linked from the account request form. Aaron Schulz 22:39, 6 January 2008 (CST)

Oh, I see! This is good news. I'll test it out myself, and then hopefully the new system will prove to be an inducement for new EPAs to join me. --Larry Sanger 22:41, 6 January 2008 (CST)


I can use the uselang= perimeter to set up separate applications for authors and editors. Special:RequestAccount would then lead to a page giving the two options, "I wish to apply as an author" and "I wish to apply as an editor". The same forms would exist but the text could be customized. I'd want Aaron to comment first, since this is a hack, same one used for the CZ:Upload-Wizard. Stephen Ewen 00:10, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Would it be very, very, very clear that someone who is qualified could apply for *both*? We wouldn't want to exclude qualified people because of a misunderstanding. Hayford Peirce 09:54, 7 January 2008 (CST)
"Editors are authors too". Stephen Ewen 10:00, 7 January 2008 (CST)

This should be part of the software (extension), not a hack. I'm not sure what you mean by "separate applications for authors and editors." Depending on what you mean, that is already the case. (I can see the editor queue; you can't.)

That said, editors can stake a claim as authors, too, but they don't have to. The way it should work is that there isn't a drop-down menu that forces a choice, but a checkbox that allows one to check either one or both, but not none. Then, if the "author" box is checked, Category:CZ Author is added to the editor application. --Larry Sanger 10:11, 7 January 2008 (CST)

I always thought 'editors' were also 'authors'. They get author rights in addition to editor rights, and it is pretty much impossible to approve pages without actually changing any content. Aaron Schulz 11:10, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Well, all editors have author rights. But "editor" and "author" are names for community roles, not for system permissions. So, some editors might not want to be identified as authors, because they aren't really interested in writing articles, they are mostly interested in doing things that only editors can do. --Larry Sanger 12:07, 7 January 2008 (CST)

I suppose anyone who changes content could still wish to be identified as not being an author. Maybe such people can just edit their user pages then? Anyone who does anything will probably be adding/changing content, so I'd say that they are an author unless they explicitly don't to be called one for some reason. I suppose 'authorship' could be defined to only include people who mainly make new article or large edits, but then what about non-editors that just tweak pages here and there or make many small edits to various pages? It becomes kind of an incoherent dividing line. The author => changes and editor => approval line is clearer IMO. Aaron Schulz 13:32, 7 January 2008 (CST)

It might be easier to centralize discussions on this at CZ_Talk:Extensions/ConfirmAccount_extension. Stephen Ewen 18:21, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Hm, yet another place to discuss technical issues? What about Citizendium-tools? What about the technical board on the forums?

One problem we have to solve is the enormous number of options of places to discuss things. This might require hard decisions, but we'll do that. I'm not going to tolerate proliferation of forums!  :-) --Larry Sanger 18:41, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Why not just moved it to CZ:Technical_Team as proposed... --Robert W King 18:42, 7 January 2008 (CST)
Yea, well, I too just one place....on wiki. Stephen Ewen 19:59, 7 January 2008 (CST)
Obviously, Steve, this is something for everyone to discuss, right? --Larry Sanger 10:42, 8 January 2008 (CST)

Church of Scientology

Can you have a look at this please? Thanks. Aaron Schulz 22:49, 8 January 2008 (CST)

This really is more of a Constabulary matter (as I explained on the above page), and if you must contact me about such a matter (I'm sure it's necessary sometimes), then, to reduce the amount of friction and ill-feeling on the wiki, please use e-mail. Thanks. --Larry Sanger 23:21, 8 January 2008 (CST)


This is a new message for the editor welcome text. Right now is just uses the ewelcome template. Aaron Schulz 21:29, 10 January 2008 (CST)

User:Subpagination Bot

Why is this a "bureaucrat" account? Aaron Schulz 01:22, 13 January 2008 (CST)

No idea. Ask on SB's user talk page. --Larry Sanger 07:03, 13 January 2008 (CST)


I can't edit my new template; It needs to be unprotected--I forgot that I protected it in order to prevent editing; the edit tab is missing from it. --Robert W King 08:59, 13 January 2008 (CST)

new knowledge society

Did you coin that term? I can't seem to find where it originally appeared. I talked some people at Carleton into letting me write an article about CZ for their (nationally distributed) magazine, but they want a first draft by next weekend and I'm scrambling to put something together. --Joe Quick 01:10, 14 January 2008 (CST)

"new knowledge society" is a terrific term. it was in use in the 1990s. see [1] and [2] Credit has been given to Daniel Bell and Peter Drucker. Richard Jensen 01:35, 14 January 2008 (CST)
I am not aware of having borrowed the term from any source. Not having read or known about Daniel Bell or Peter Drucker, or any other source a more exhaustive search might turn up, credit obviously does not have to be given to them. There is a difference between something being a source and being a precursor.
If copious Googling proves anything, it is that zillions of people use all sorts of obscure but eloquent phrases independently. Think up any meaningful three-word phrase; it is almost certain to be turned up in many locations on the Web.
Are all of those people "coining" those phrases independently? I'm not sure what the question means. --Larry Sanger 07:26, 14 January 2008 (CST)

I should refine my question. Who first used that term in reference to CZ? Steve said on my talk page that Ian suggested using it, but I'd like to know where it first appeared in a press release, article, etc. I thought it might have come from Keen's book, but I haven't read the book and I think I remember seeing it in something from Larry a long time ago. --Joe Quick 13:24, 14 January 2008 (CST)

I really don't know. I recall that Ian was enthusiastic about it, but I don't know who suggested it. --Larry Sanger 13:58, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Okay, thanks. The theme of the issue that will feature my article in is "Empires," so I thought I would be clever and write something like, "On x date, Larry Sanger, the project's founder and editor-in-chief registered his thoughts on the 'new knowledge society' that..." I'm sure I can find something useful.
The magazine doesn't have a huge distribution but it reaches 8 or 10 thousand people, a large number of whom are in academia and like to hear about things from fellow alumni. I'll run a later draft by the exec. comm. and if people are happy about it, I'll sign the article as a member of that committee (to pique readers' interest). --Joe Quick 23:45, 14 January 2008 (CST)

That sounds great, Joe! --Larry Sanger 07:22, 15 January 2008 (CST)



All due respect, as someone with a ABD in Cognitive Science, you're wrong. This is the standard definiton for congition. Secondly, cognition does indeed fall within the bounds of psychology, as well as education. And, finally, re:Wilbur, this is a stub...Gardner, Chomsky, McClintock, etc. forthcoming. --Michael J. Formica 09:47, 14 January 2008 (CST)

I'm amazed. Can you find anything like that definition in a non-Wilbur source?

Also, of course I didn't mean to say that cognition doesn't fall within the bounds of psychology (cognitive psychology in particular)! I'm sorry if something I wrote implied anything to the contrary. --Larry Sanger 10:05, 14 January 2008 (CST)

Sure, as I didn't take it from a Wilbur source. And you know how I am about references. I've edited the article to meet the standard of homogeneity required. --Michael J. Formica 10:07, 14 January 2008 (CST)

All right, thanks--I'll wait to see how it develops. --Larry Sanger 10:10, 14 January 2008 (CST)


Larry, I wonder if you'll find this interesting. I discovered a tool today that gives stats for the number of hits specific wikipedia articles get during the last two months (you can choose december or january, to date). Out of interest I then ran all of the articles currently on the CZ:Architecture core articles list. The raw results are here. Unsurprisingly, the acknowledged great buildings of the world's past scored high, as do American architects and structures, Frank Gehry gets 4 times the number of hits than Rem Koolhaas or Zaha Hadid, who are arguably more/as important today.

Our list was compiled from my viewpoint as an architect, and an attempt to give a broad overview of all the aspects of architecture and practice. Clearly the architectural practice, legal and cost control articles are low in the public's wish list. Should we amend the core article list with a more populist slant to attract 'hits' or continue on our high-brow merry way? I'm happy to reformat the list as a table with 'highest ranking first' etc if anyone's remotely interested. regards --Russ McGinn 09:30, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Excellent point, Russ. I can't think too hard about this or decide right now, but I don't think I would be opposed to using the Wikipedia data here. It could be used either to replace or to supplement the core articles lists. Since many lists are not even complete, I would say that we should simply fill in the uncompleted lists with the WP data. But this is something to discuss either on the forums or at CZ talk:Core Articles, not here on my page. --Larry Sanger 10:04, 17 January 2008 (CST)

Righto - will do. --Russ McGinn 17:49, 17 January 2008 (CST)


Did I miss a meeting this morning? I just now realized what it was that was nagging at me last night. --Joe Quick 11:44, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Nope, we never rescheduled. We'll have to start next week. --Larry Sanger 11:46, 18 January 2008 (CST)

Technical issue

Larry: Take a look here -> Ken Wilber#References. What is that little bit of weirdness and the line break that happens with it when you put a hyperlink inside a reference? Can it be fixed? Blessings... --Michael J. Formica 07:03, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Good question. I do not know. I have never been able to figure it out. But (if we're talking about the same thing) it's just a little cosmetic thing, right? --Larry Sanger 07:07, 19 January 2008 (CST)

Yep... but cosmetics have a way of becoming glitches, which have a way of becoming bugs... Anyway, you're aware of it, and that's all that matters. --Michael J. Formica 07:12, 19 January 2008 (CST)


This mistake, especially coming from an author who used this term himself (in its wider sense) -- I'm sure you remember--, might have seemed rather odd or even troubling to you. I assure you it was purely unconscious. I guess I should pay more attention to the general notion, and to what thinkers have said about it!

Diagnosis: Lapsus: an involuntary mistake made while writing or speaking. According to Freud, in his early psychoanalytic theory it represents a missed deed that hides an unconscious desire. (WP) Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 21:11, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I don't think anyone takes Freud seriously anymore ;) Aaron Schulz 23:14, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I don't read too much into it.  :-) --Larry Sanger 22:23, 21 January 2008 (CST)

I suggest Empirical Studies Validate Prominence of Unconscious Processes, Psychiatric Times, july 2000, a commentary on Westen D (1999)The scientific status of unconscious processes: is Freud really dead? J Am Psychoanal Assoc 47(4):1061-1106.
Perhaps you'd like to formulate your advice (one should not to take Freud seriously, one should not to read too much into it) in a more elaborate way?
Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 09:49, 22 January 2008 (CST)

Well, somewhere other than my user talk page, if so, please.  :-) --Larry Sanger 14:04, 22 January 2008 (CST)

New Mediawiki theme

I saw on the mailing list that you're considering a new theme. Have you considered using the theme named "Modern"? The WP front page using the theme can be previewed here. Oliver Smith 10:53, 24 January 2008 (CST)

There's an ongoing discussion of this on the forums in the technical section there. That particular skin looks a little too similar to the existing one, I think. But I would agree that it would be an improvement. --Larry Sanger 11:19, 24 January 2008 (CST)


Issue. When you say that an article should take the commonly used name of the subject, do you mean the American term or the world term? See the "Why move" discussion under football (soccer). Outside the US, Association Football (i.e., football) is the major world sport and is essentially known as Football, Fußball, Futbol or Calcio (Italy: to kick). Are you insisting that it should be known as soccer on CZ because that is its name in the US where it is a minority sport? --John Leach 16:41, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Last I checked, John, the United States was part of the world: hence, there is no single "world term." And hence the problem. This is not a matter to pick a fight about; it is a matter to settle reasonably after polite discussion. I am not stating that the sport should exist under the precise title soccer, of course. If those interested cannot arrive at a reasonable consensus, let me know, and we'll find a way to settle the matter more definitively. --Larry Sanger 22:20, 26 January 2008 (CST)

Olympic Games subpates

Thanks for the info on subpage levels. Now that I know the parameters, I can figure out how to best structure things. James F. Perry 12:27, 28 January 2008 (CST)

No problemo. --Larry Sanger 12:39, 28 January 2008 (CST)


Hi Larry, Trinity College Dublin has an 'unexpected' problem. Thought you should take a look :-( Denis Cavanagh 08:25, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Reported on Template talk:Subpages. If Chris can't fix it, I'll have a go. --Larry Sanger 08:48, 1 February 2008 (CST)

This feels like Homer Simpson moment! Sorry for wasting your time. Denis Cavanagh 08:57, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Template help

Here is an actual question about User:Larry Sanger, the page! Can anyone shed any light on why Template:Userplan-all-workgroup, Template:User/Larry Sanger, and Template:Organization are showing up as links instead of displaying? The latter is weird, since there is nothing wrong or particularly complicated about that template itself. I suspect it is some very minor thang (whitespace, grr) bured in {{Userplan-all}}. Notice that Louise's (just for example) motto isn't displaying properly, at the bottom of her infobox on User:Louise Valmoria. --Larry Sanger 14:44, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Is there some kind of template-link limit that you've surpassed? Also, Louise doesn't have a motto... you have one but instead it displays "Template:User/Larry Sanger [e] " --Robert W King 14:57, 1 February 2008 (CST)
I agree with Robert, you ran out of memory. How much are you transcluding onto the page? I think Zach increased the page limit to 2MB (even 4), there was a similar problem with the cite templates not working. Basically, once the size limit is reached the templates just stop functioning. Try putting the organisation one at the top of the page. I expect it will work fine if it comes first, but then the break down will occur at somewhere else. Sorry to be vague. Chris Day (talk) 15:09, 1 February 2008 (CST)
See this discussion Template_talk:Subpages#HTML_clue Chris Day (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Do you mean individual pages have a memory limit, and User:Larry Sanger exceeded the limit? I have no idea how much I'm transcluding, but I can't believe it would be 2MB!

Moving {{userplan-all}} to the top didn't help. --Larry Sanger 15:26, 1 February 2008 (CST)

I did remove some lines, and then my new Recruitment infobox showed up. So it's definitely simply a matter of size, I'm sorry to say. Well, what's a good strategy to reduce size?

Of interest:

--Larry Sanger 15:42, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Check here for a solution I have been using. User_talk:ZachPruckowski#reducing_size_of_the_subpages_template There was a thread in the forums on this some where. I had a quick look but could not find it. Chris Day (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Interesting ideas...I don't understand what the x0 template is for, though...? --Larry Sanger 22:27, 1 February 2008 (CST)

Usually an "if statement" is used and only one of many objects show up on a page. However, every object possible is counted in the page size. The xo template trick, I forget where it is explained in detail, means that only the content that is actually shown on the page counts towards the page size. I have not looked at your code, so this might not be relevent to your templates. Chris Day (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2008 (CST)
I'm pretty sure it is relevant to my templates. Could you (or someone) give me an example by changing my code (and make sure that it works, of course)? I'm sure I'll be able to figure it out from there. --Larry Sanger 12:03, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Don't understand why Air Resources Laboratory should be in the CZ:Topic Informant Workgroup

Larry, with all due respect, I don't understand what that Topic Informant Workgroup is meant to include. But rather than belabor that point, let me tell you a few things about the Air Resources Laboratory (ARL) article:

  • It is a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which is an important, independent Agency of the U.S. Government. Both NOAA and the ARL are not non-political. Their leadership are political appointees. If the ARL belongs in the Topic Informant Workgroup, then so does NOAA ... and NASA and the EPA and the CIA and Medicare and all the other agencies and administrations of our government.
  • Both NOAA and the ARL are very involved in air pollution dispersion modeling which is an important branch of science and engineering.
  • I fully realize that there are probably only a handful (if that many) CZ members who understand what air pollution dispersion modeling is. It is taught in hundreds of universities world-wide, at the undergraduate as well as the PhD level. Thousands (and I do mean thousands) of physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, chemical engineers and environmental engineers work on a daily basis in air pollution modeling. They work for local, state, provincial and national governmental environmental protection and regulatory agencies, they work in every major industry that produces air pollution, they work in consulting firms and they work in academia. In other words, it is not some esoteric subject by any means.
  • If your intent was to inform CZ readers about the topic of air pollution dispersion modeling, then I would suggest that the Air pollution dispersion modeling and the Air pollution dispersion terminology articles would be much better choices.

As I said above, I don't really understand what the Topic Informant Workgroup is intended to include and I don't understand why you chose to place the Air Resources Laboratory article in that Workgroup. I just want to make sure that you personally understood what air pollution dispersion modeling was. Regards and I will watch for your response here, - Milton Beychok 22:57, 2 February 2008 (CST)

Essentially, I think all articles about currently existing entities with legal interests--including government agencies--belong in that workgroup. Yes, that's going to be a lot of things. It is an unusual sort of workgroup; it doesn't mean that they can determine when the article is ready to be approved. It means, for example, that they will be on the lookout for libel concerns as well as concerns about conflict of interest. See CZ:Topic Informant Workgroup and CZ:Policy on Topic Informants, where these mysteries are introduced if not fully resolved.

The workgroup members are very informal and haven't really done much in a long time. --Larry Sanger 00:17, 3 February 2008 (CST)

I'm sorry, but after reading your suggested CZ:Policy on Topic Informants, there were no "mysteries introduced or resolved". I still fail to see why Air Resources Laboratory should be in the same workgroup as Barack Obama, Eleanor Roosevelt, Pete Sampras (an idol of mine), George W. Bush (no idol of mine), Al Gore, Bill Maher or the World Science Fiction Society. In fact, I can see absolutely no connection between those articles and Air Resources Laboratory. I realize that you are the founder of Citizendium but, with all due respect, I think you are just plain wrong on this issue. Regards, Milton Beychok 01:06, 3 February 2008 (CST)

I'm not just founder, I'm editor-in-chief and I'm interpreting a long-standing policy.  :-) Do you understand the purpose of a Topic Informant Workgroup? If you do, then simply answer this question, and maybe we'll get somewhere: why isn't the Air Resources Laboratory, like every other government agency and research institution, covered by the declared scope of the workgroup? --Larry Sanger 08:33, 4 February 2008 (CST)

  • I saw this discussion and don't understand much of it, either. However, I wrote NIST, which is a federal institution, and wonder if this discussion doesn't apply to this article as well.--Paul Wormer 08:49, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Well, you need to actually read and understand the policy if you're going to understand the purpose of the workgroup. Yep, I think all federal institutions should be included in the workgroup: all the issues (conflict of interest, libel) that give rise to the classification also apply to NIST. --Larry Sanger 09:02, 4 February 2008 (CST)

I just looked at the policy; most of it is written in a way which implies that articles are about living persons. It probably is a good idea to cover existing corporations, government agencies, and other legal persons, but the policy should be rewritten to make that more clear, and perhaps to discuss the ways where the policy needs to be applied differently for organizations than for people. Lastly, the CZ:Topic Informant Workgroup page should have a little more about the policy, not just a link to it. Anthony Argyriou 11:56, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Could I ask you to put the latter remarks on the relevant talk pages so the advice isn't lost when I or someone finds time to work on it? Thanks. --Larry Sanger 12:14, 4 February 2008 (CST)


I just noticed your profile said you went to Ohio State, and somewhere else it said you were in Ohio. You don't live in Columbus, do you? Jonathan Beshears 15:25, 3 February 2008 (CST)

I live in Pataskala, actually, 30 minutes east. --Larry Sanger 08:28, 4 February 2008 (CST)

Well, we should have a citizendium meetup sometime, then. Any plans for anything like that? Jonathan Beshears 01:43, 6 February 2008 (CST)

No specific plans at this time. I'd love to meet with local long as we can avoid calling it a "meetup." Please? --Larry Sanger 07:28, 6 February 2008 (CST)

Heh, okay. How about we call it "happy hour"? :) Jonathan Beshears 20:27, 6 February 2008 (CST)

Sounds groovy. Do you want to organize it? (You knew that was coming, right?) --Larry Sanger 20:30, 6 February 2008 (CST)

Sure, I'll organize something. Should we put up a page about it, and get some idea of how many people might come? I was thinking of just meeting up at one of the quieter bars around Columbus. Should we shoot for sometime in March, or later? Jonathan Beshears 03:02, 9 February 2008 (CST)

I don't have my schedule in front of me, so I couldn't give you a date, but March sounds good. You and I might be the only ones, but who knows? The first step, I'd say, is post a message on Citizendium-L and see if anyone pings back. --Larry Sanger 08:48, 9 February 2008 (CST)

Catalogs and Related Articles

In a recent edit to the CZ:Catalogs page, you wrote (hoping to clarify the difference between Catalogs and Related Articles):

"Information can often usefully stated in a tabular form, or other highly structured form; we put such presentations of information in what we call "catalogs." Note that mere lists of related terms and definitions belong on Related Articles pages."

I am confused. It appears that a distinction is being made between tabular presentation of information and the use of the "r" template for the same information. Here is some information presented in tabular format (this is from the Catalog of famous Scots):

Dates Name Description
1771-1832 Walter Scott A prolific Scottish writer (1771-1832), considered the inventor of the genre of historical fiction; wrote the Waverly novels, romanticizing Scottish Highland culture.

Now here is the information as presented using the "r" template:

Pretty much the same. Except for the markup complexity in using the table and the fact that the information has to be entered anew each time rather than simply drawing on the definition template.

Are such catalogs (of "famous Scots", of "notable Canadians") properly placed on the Catalogs subpage or should they be integrated into the Related Articles subpage? I would argue for their inclusion within the Catalogs. The information is almanac style information and could be presented in tabular form, but need not be.

If the information in the catalog of "famous Scots" belongs on the Related Articles page, then why not also the list of Scottish rulers?

James F. Perry 22:05, 5 February 2008 (CST)

It's very simple, actually. If the information you're contemplating putting in a catalog is no more complex than can be expressed in a Related Articles page (complete with definitions), then then it belongs on a Related Articles page. Why not? After all, Related Articles pages are supposed to have all (closely) related topics, as well as definitions of the words in the topics.
As to your last question: indeed, why not? --Larry Sanger 22:20, 5 February 2008 (CST)

As an example, let us consider Thomas Reid. In the Oxford Guide to Philosophy, there is no discussion, not even a mention, of Scotland in their entry on Reid. In your own CZ entry on Reid, you did not discuss Scotland apart from mentioning it, in passing. Thus, it would appear that Thomas Reid would not be placed in the RA subpage for Scotland ("Subtopic may be defined as follows: x is a subtopic of y =df. discussion of x itself is necessarily also discussion of y"). The same could be said of nearly all the Famous Scots in the catalog of the same name.

The problem with that approach is that a person who is interested in Scotland would not be able to easily find the information (and articles) contained in the famous Scots catalog. And I assert that such a person is interested in those articles! Instead, the user is to be treated to a dreary listing (on the RA subpage) of kings and queens and rulers (not only for Scotland but for all other countries).

You are attempting to define an "ideal system" for use of the subpages. It is too rigid and, in places, contradictory (look at some of the examples listed on the CZ:Catalogs page, for example, [3]). You should instead consider how people work when processing and seeking information. It is not ideal. It is not logical. It is somewhat messy. The use of subpages should be based on how an inquisitive, intelligent human mind operates in handling information.

James F. Perry 14:52, 6 February 2008 (CST)

I'm not sure I understand your objections entirely, especially very vague ones like "You are attempting to define an 'ideal system' for the use of subpages." Let's talk about specific cases. You say that I say that a list of kings and queens must only occur on a Related Articles subpage--well, no, I didn't say that. If you thought I was saying that, you misunderstood. All I am saying is that if you place some information in a catalog, then it should have more information than is contained in a list of definitions of the sort that you put on a RA subpage. The list itself could (perhaps should) occur in either or both places. I didn't mean to be saying that you should be putting the information on that topic on a RA subpage.

As to the Thomas Reid business, you are making an inference (again) that I wouldn't make. Correct, Thomas Reid isn't an immediate subtopic of Scotland. But it doesn't follow from that that Reid shouldn't be listed on the RA subpage: "There are, however, some subtopics that are not immediate subtopics, but which should be listed. These are topics that are particularly important. How 'importance' is gauged is subjective. We might provide some guidelines over time." Even less does that imply that Reid shouldn't be listed on a catalog subpage listing famous Scots.

We might get farther faster if you didn't make long complicated inferences and then say, "I can't believe how you would argue for such a thing"--my answer is going to be, "But I don't!"  :-) A more productive way forward would be for you to ask (on CZ talk:Related Articles, say) about what the policy means, or what it should be taken to mean. If I (or others with opinions) give an answer you don't like, then it makes sense to argue. --Larry Sanger 20:23, 6 February 2008 (CST)

possible cause of slow growth

Larry - something I've encountered here seems to relate to the slow takeoff Citizendium is experiencing. I'm not calling for a change necessarily, as there are benefits to what I've seen, which may compensate for the slowing it causes.

What I'm referring to is the very collegial and cautious manner most people take towards editing existing articles. People here are not nearly so bold as they are at Wikipedia. Any siginificant change in an article gets discussed first. Occasionally, large edits earn the author a smackdown from established authors. The problem is that many authors are on Citizendium only intermittently, so responses to a proposed change may take a day or three, by which time, if the proposed edit wasn't completely developed, the impetus may be lost. The countervailing advantages are that pretty much every substantial edit has effectively been through "peer review", and that there's essentially no edit-warring. I think as we recruit more authors (and editors), that proposed changes will be responded to more quickly, allowing changes and large additions to be made more quickly.

Anthony Argyriou 12:53, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I generally agree--I think we aren't bold enough. I'm not sure what to do to encourage people to be bolder. Any ideas? But I think the explanation of our "slow growth" has a lot more to do with our youth. We aren't growing as fast as Wikipedia because we're not as old as Wikipedia. --Larry Sanger 13:50, 11 February 2008 (CST)
Some of the changes would need to come from you, I think. Right now, we don't have the "bold:revert:discuss" cycle of Wikipedia, and I don't know that we should - we're getting more real discussion and less argument than Wikipedia does. CZ:Professionalism#Reversion and deletion as unprofessional behaviors says that any removal of more than 50 words is an offense. That leads, I think, to significantly more caution than editors at Wikipedia show. While I agree that the idea behind it is good, I think the policy needs to either be softened a little, or explained in a way which makes people feel more comfortable about taking a small article or section and significantly expanding it. Perhaps a modification which merely requires explanation on the talk page of major deletions?
For example, I significantly rewrote tide and crystal recently (tide diff, crystal diff). Technically, the edits to tide violated the 50-word rule; crystal wasn't 50 words long to begin with, but my edits essentially wiped out the existing article. Being bold required breaking, or at least bending, the rule.
Another example, which ended well, but produced more heat in the process, was my edit to Spherical polar coordinates, here. Technically, the edit removed fewer than 50 words. The end result was a much better expression of the problem; however, someone less stubborn might see the discussion and decide that greater caution was called for. Anthony Argyriou 16:14, 11 February 2008 (CST)
Maybe you can help test our new proposals system by adding your proposal via CZ:Proposals?  :-) --Larry Sanger 16:16, 11 February 2008 (CST)

You coded a bug in the template

Apparently the next step part doesn't show even if you put something in the variable, and if you put a name for the driver it will copy the driver name into the next step field. See the template. --Robert W King 15:27, 11 February 2008 (CST)

Do you think you can fix it? Please do if so. --Larry Sanger 15:32, 11 February 2008 (CST)

I am at loss

Trying to drive CZ:Proposals/Initial#How_should_we_classify_and_index_recipes.3F, I am feeling queer! Please see what more is to be done there. Supten Sarbadhikari 22:29, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Just get behind the wheel, Supten! LOL! I'll leave some comments there. --Larry Sanger 22:31, 12 February 2008 (CST)

Naming of the space

Would it be proper to call CZ:Proposals/Recently_moved to the Editorial Council queue, since there is actually a formal procedure to put a proposal (fully sponsored & co-sponsored) into the queue of the Editorial Council? Supten Sarbadhikari 01:37, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Well, two points...first, CZ:Proposals/Recently moved is a list of all proposals moved from CZ:Proposals/New to any other queue, such as CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council, but also CZ:Proposals/Constabulary, CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc, etc. So redirecting the page as you suggest (I think that's what you mean by "calling" the page?) would put a lot of proposals that don't belong to the Editorial Council on the Council agenda. Second, Council rules state that only Council members may sponsor a resolution. Moreover, it is very likely that a proposals system driver will consider a proposal well formed that is not, in fact, well formed according to Editorial Council rules.

If anything, it's the Editorial Council rules that should be simplified here, but actually I don't think they've posed a huge impediment. I just wish all these systems were automated! --Larry Sanger 06:53, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, you are right. Perhaps in our Wishlist we should try to automate as many processes as possible! My point was that the said proposal is NOT in the Editorial Council Queue (which is a very well defined status) but rather it is in a queue for being posted to the Editorial Council, as per the adopted procedures. Supten Sarbadhikari 07:56, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Oh, now I understand. Sorry about that. Easily fixed. --Larry Sanger 07:59, 14 February 2008 (CST)