CZ Talk:Subpages

Invited, Signed Articles

I presume invitations can go to CZ non-members, Albert Gore, say. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:55, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Right. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

For students

Could we provide another version of the main article targeting Middle--to--High-School, or even younger depending on article? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 17:58, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, we could. Good idea; it's technically feasible to start up both "expert" and "middle-school" level articles. --Larry Sanger 10:16, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Earlier nominations

Nominated articles

Anybody can nominate an article here

Biology

Yea

• Anthony.Sebastian (Talk)
• Stephen Ewen (Talk)

Nay

---

Economics

Yea

• Janos Abel

Nay

---

systems biology

Yea

• Thomas Mandel

nay

• Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) (needs work}

---

Literature

Yea

Nay

---

Periodic Table of Elements

Yea

Nay

Discussion

Purpose?

I can't see how, aside from perhaps the debate and news guides and invited articles this whole subpage thing will be helpful. Is there an essential difference from including the bibliography in the article, aside from fragmenting the information? I don't particularly relish the thought of moving back and forth between subpages to read referenced material or see pictures. I'd rather just scroll through a well-organized collection of information. James A. Flippin 01:28, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

As I understand it, the references section in articles will stay; the bibliography subpage will be different, a collection of great sources for further reading on the subject. If I am mistaken, if it removes all references to a subpage, I very much agree with you. It would be needless and very frustrating fragmentation, akin to the frustration of reading a book with all its references in the back rather than at the bottom of the page...constantly, constantly, constantly having to flip between the text and the references cited.

Regarding the Gallery, I understand the same principle will operate. The gallery will be additional photos not contained in the text, a "pictorial article" of sorts, ideally. For an example, see Onslow Beach and click on the gallery link.

One issue going on right now you mgith wish to weigh in on is the placement location of the subpage links/box. See http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1059.0.html if you wish to see various examples and give your opinion on the matter.

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:48, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I believe the bibliography and weblinks in the subpages are meant to be annotated as well. For long lists of sources, this would make for very long articles if they were left in the main article space. --Joe Quick (Talk) 03:02, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Page headers

Can't we just include the page header in the subpages template so it is automated? This will ensure the correct headers are used in all cases. Chris Day (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I just added some code to the top of the subpages template that allows the correct header template to be identifed and placed automatically. Note now that each subpage in biology has two headers (see Biology/Links for an example Note: only links example is currently functional). One from the subpages template and one that was placed manually. This should save time and be less confusing for people who are creating new subpages (i.e. only one tempate to worry about.) Chris Day (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Another thing to note here is that this new version of the subpages template will place the {{approved}} or {{construction}} template on an article depending on whether the approved field is used in the subpages template or not. For example, if subpages is placed on the Biology article it would be used in the following format: {{subpages|editor=editor=David Tribe|group=Biology|approved=yes}} This negates the use of the current approved template as the approved template will automatically be placed by the subpages template. Chris Day (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Categories or not?

While we are discussing headers should part of their functionality be to add different categories for the various subpages. I have created an example using the {{gallery header}}. Compare the categories for the Life/Gallery (a hypothetically approved gallery) and the unapproved Anthropology/Gallery. These categories are selected based on the fields being designated in the template placed at the head of the gallery page. For example, for Life the template is {{Gallery header|group=biology|approved=yes}} for anthropology it is {{Gallery header|group=anthropology}}. If we have the auto generated headers (see discussion above) as part of the subpages template then it would be as follows: {{subpages|group=biology|approved=yes}} or {{subpages|group=anthropology}} Chris Day (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

It sure would make them easily browsable.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 13:56, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, this is an obvious must if you think about it. Let's settle upon some good naming conventions for these, however. [[Category:<workgroup> <plural form of subpage name>]], probably: Category:Anthropology Galleries; Category:Philosophy Links.

I'll tell you, once we get this set up, establishing a new workgroup is going to be so complicated and so much gruntwork, nobody's going to want to do it. It might be nice to have a script-bot that takes a single workgroup name and then just spits out all the necessary apparatus. --Larry Sanger 09:25, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Given that, we might want to be forward looking and take the big grunt now of creating any new ones needed for years out.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 22:50, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Gallery

We need to decide whether this will be a Media Gallery, inclusive of images, audio, and video; or, a Gallery for images, and a separate subpage called, say, Audio/Video.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:41, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to separate these, simply because people don't often look for all these different media at the same time, I imagine. --Larry Sanger 09:21, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

People

The present Subpages constellation may be a bit too logocentric in traditional scholarly ways.

Everything proposed seems to have an important place, but the actual, living (or once-living) people associated with entries seem to occupy a secondary place. I am referring to biographical information, of course, but not merely in a historical sense. (1) It would seem useful to organize in some place other than a search result page (or dedicated page for the few best known authors) all of the works by a single author. (And, of course, to also link these with the appropriate sites as mentioned in the Bibliography policy.) It should eventually be possible for a set of subpages to capture something like the Get Cited site. (2) Also, with all the truly amazing work in recent decades on social networking, better capturing some of what most people now recognize as the Six Degrees phenomenon.

People mentioned in Citizendium articles are not just authors with bibliographies and celebrities with their own entries, but also "stars" (in the social networking sense) in their own social networks. Wikiing makes this all quite feasible, but subpages could also make such people-references into additional special features of the site.

Roger Lohmann 09:07, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure I understand, but we will have "Works" subpages, on the current proposal. Will that encourage the feature you're describing? I probably just don't understand... --Larry Sanger 09:20, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Sub-subpages or not?

I have been thinking about this recently. There is one advantage to having signed articles, and similar, on sub-subpages. It means that a specific header title can be placed automatically at the top of the page (see examples of signed articles, timelines and tables sub-subpages in the Test article cluster.

However, using sub-subpages means it is not possible to have the metadata stored on a subpage (such as ARTICLENAME/Metadata). Instead, it must be stored in a template (Template:ARTICLENAME/Metadata).

So which do we deem more important? Having Metadata on a subpage rather than a template or having customised headers> At present I can't figure a way wee can do both (although that does not mean it is not possible). Chris Day (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Student

It is not clearly evident that a Student subpage will be a lower level article. How about just being a bit more explicit about it: Student level.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 14:12, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me add here that this subpage aspect is truly exciting...to me, a person who specializes in "translating" advanced topics into lower literacy levels. :-)  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 00:35, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Big New Workgroups Resolution

This should happen before any Big Subpagination Project.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 20:04, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Why? --Larry Sanger 20:44, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Chris needs to chime in. I recall him saying somewhere that this was important. I posted what I did above to make sure it was brought up and addressed, if it really needs to be.  —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 02:53, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure what this is about? I don't recall discussing this before. Chris Day (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

So much has happened, you know, I don't blame you. :-) --Larry Sanger 17:38, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

How many neurons do we lose each day? i must have lost the ones that stored this info. So where is the Workgroups resolution? I expect I have it as a different name in my head. Chris Day (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Anything to do with this (CZ_Talk:New_Workgroup_Requests), and Stephen, why is this related to the subpagination project? Chris Day (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Step 4

I could run a bot to do step 4 in what's called The Big Subpagination. I'm running a bot on Wikipedia (pywikipedia-based), so I'm confident that I could manage the technical part. One potential problem is that I'll be away in October and part of November. Step 5b has to be done first, which might mean that the bot cannot be employed before October. On the other hand, perhaps it's enough for step 5b to just go through the list of titles, which can be done fairly quickly. Anyway, I wouldn't mind at all if somebody else would run the bot; there are enough articles to be written and improved to keep me busy for all my life.

As it stands, there are a couple of points that need to be clarified:

• What does "all articles" refer to? All pages in main space that are not a subpage or a redirect? Related question: What to do about pages like 40mm/56 caliber gun, which are not supposed to be subpages but are currently treated as such?
• Move articles to draft space? (We can always postpone this decision and do another bot run if necessary)
• What subsections should be moved to subpages? The section "See also" should be moved to the subpage "Related Articles" and the section "External links" to the subpage "External Links". Any more? There are (at least) three section titles that correspond to the subpage "Bibliography", namely "References", "Further reading" and of course "Bibliography". What do we do if more than one is present in the article (if this is rare then it's probably best only to list those articles and let humans handle it)? An added complication is that many articles contain the <references/> tag in the "References" section; that tag should not be moved to the "Bibliography" subpage.
• If an article has the Wikipedia flag, then all subpages created from it should also carry this flag?
• "If an article has categories but no checklist, populate the checklist categories with the article categories" — does this refer to workgroup categories like Category:Health Sciences Workgroup or are there other categories to take into account? Similarly, should we remove all categories from articles or only workgroup categories?

-- Jitse Niesen 07:34, 2 September 2007 (CDT)