User talk:Chris Day: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris Day |
imported>Chris Day |
||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
Confused as to why the workgroup and subgroup categories don't also show at bottom of the draft main article page ??? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | Confused as to why the workgroup and subgroup categories don't also show at bottom of the draft main article page ??? [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
First, no the jogging only needs to occur if the metadata is set to approved AFTER the article is protected. We must set up a protocol for approval that has the final edits and protection being on the article page. | :First, no the jogging only needs to occur if the metadata is set to approved AFTER the article is protected. We must set up a protocol for approval that has the final edits and protection being on the article page. | ||
Second, I striped the draft page of the categories since they served no purpose. The approved categories replicated the draft categories. Also every article name in the category ended with "/Draft" that is unsightly, so there is a very good reason to stick with the approved categories on the main article. Also bear in mind our readers will read the main article. Historically the old /Draft categories was actually a kludge solution to allow recent changes on the draft version to be tracked. However we now have the tags which are far more efficient and are used to track all change in any given workgroup seen by clicking on "recent changes" in the workgroup (or subgroup) page header. If you would like the categories visible it will be possible to have them at the top of each draft page. That might even be preferable? | :Second, I striped the draft page of the categories since they served no purpose. The approved categories replicated the draft categories. Also every article name in the category ended with "/Draft" that is unsightly, so there is a very good reason to stick with the approved categories on the main article. Also bear in mind our readers will read the main article. Historically the old /Draft categories was actually a kludge solution to allow recent changes on the draft version to be tracked. However we now have the tags which are far more efficient and are used to track all change in any given workgroup seen by clicking on "recent changes" in the workgroup (or subgroup) page header. If you would like the categories visible it will be possible to have them at the top of each draft page. That might even be preferable? | ||
Lastly, the tag categories are still red links because we have not systematically populated those pages. Hold off on that since I need to tweak the workgroup template so that the appropriate text appears at the top of each page. The ones that have been done, notably the [[:Category:Biology tag]], have been set up manually, rather than automatically. I'll fix this soon. i am still trying to figure out how the tag categories can be 'hidden' since they are only meant to be utilized by the workgroup "recent changes" option, not by users for browsing. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) | :Lastly, the tag categories are still red links (and the content ones) because we have not systematically populated those pages. Hold off on that since I need to tweak the workgroup template so that the appropriate text appears at the top of each page. The ones that have been done, notably the [[:Category:Biology tag]], have been set up manually, rather than automatically. I'll fix this soon. i am still trying to figure out how the tag categories can be 'hidden' since they are only meant to be utilized by the workgroup "recent changes" option, not by users for browsing. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:18, 21 January 2009
| |||
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
|
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
|
Notes to self
- Fix move cluster
- Write proposal for subgroups
- {{Lemma}} idea
- optional photo credit
- Article task and notification list
- Metadata edits always current so should tie speedydelete etc to that one page. This will get around the maintenance categories often being out of date.
- Supernova [r]: Please do not use this term in your topic list, because there is no single article for it. Please substitute a more precise term. See Nova (astronomy)#Supernova (disambiguation) for a list of available, more precise, topics. Please add a new usage if needed.
See - /Notes to self
Need to figure out the disconnects between the rare earths elemental classes and the template:periodic. Did uranium, but others need fixing too. See Uranium/Elemental Class
- List of agricultural methods topics
- List of biology topics
- List of code generation topics
- List of compiler optimizations
- List of famous Canadians
- List of humanities journals
- List of important publications in biology
- List of inorganic compounds
- List of languages using the .NET Framework
- List of library associations
- List of medical schools
- List of music psychology topics
- List of notable evolutionary biologists
- List of notable paleoanthropologists
- List of notable primatologists
- List of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance experiments
- List of operating systems
- List of organic compounds
- List of organic reactions
- List of scholarly journals in international relations
- List of scientific journals
- List of seminal concepts in computer science
- List of snake scales
- List of social science journals
- List of space advocacy organizations
- List of states of matter
- List of topics related to agriculture
- List of viperine species and subspecies
- List of youth orchestras in the United States
Definitions of redirects
When I previewed, all seemed to work as I intended. Clearly, they didn't for you. What were the symptoms? Was I running into some restriction on non-alphanumeric characters? Howard C. Berkowitz 22:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just went to the top of the article rather than the appropriate section. Chris Day 22:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- What do I need to do differently? I had, I thought, written REDIRECT [[Article title#Section heading]] Howard C. Berkowitz 22:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
- You are not wrong. But you have a special character in the three most recent cases. While "#Sarnoff's Law" and "#Sarnoff.E2.80.99s_Law" are look the same when viewed in a hyperlink on the screen they do not behave the same in a redirect, at least not in my browser. The latter redirects to the subsection, as we want, but the former stalls at the top of the article. Chris Day 04:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Nutritional medicine
If you are going to redirect, why not to the more specific level of the subheading "Nutritional medical techniques"? I suppose that subhead could be renamed "nutritional medicine", although at some point, it will be a full article. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- I just used what was already there. i agree it should go to the more specific heading. Chris Day 19:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
the importance of adding an asterisk
Thanks, Chris! I still baffled by all this, however. And how that single asterisk turns everything right, is a pure mystery to me! But thanks again! (Did you see my "cri de coeur" the Forum?) Hayford Peirce 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the wiki one line break is not seen as a line break at all. However any type of indent will then force a line break. If you want a line break without an indent you will need to have two line breaks. I suspect this strange arrangement is to allow code, such as </ref> to exist on its own line (for clarity) without actually causing line breaks in the text. Chris Day 19:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for all your help in various places. I have printed your Forum reply and will study it; will also study your various moves on the various article pages and try to figure out what has been done and why. Eventually, if I can grasp things for myself, I'll see if maybe I can make the Related Articles instructions clearer. (I remember when I got my first MS-DOS computer in 1984 and it came with an enormous binder from Microsoft with so-called instructions in it -- I was literally reduced to tears at one point. Even a year or so later, when I had become pretty adept at using DOS, the friggin' book was *still* a mystery!) Hayford Peirce 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Are those to be earnest asterisks? Howard C. Berkowitz 20:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
An example of why one line break alone does not interrupt the text on a wiki:
If I write:
Organic chemicals<ref>An important reference here</ref> are the basis for life as we know it.
or
Organic chemicals<ref>An important reference here </ref> are the basis for life as we know it.
They will both appear like the following text in the wiki:
Organic chemicals[1] are the basis for life as we know it.
- Hmmm...one can visit San Francisco, not Silicon Valley, and infer from some observation that silicone may be the basis for some life. Must be those silicon-oxygen bonds. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- You must be thinking of Carol Doda and the Condor Club.... Hayford Peirce 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two of San Francisco's greatest landmarks -- which we visited on honeymoon #2. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I visited it around '65 with my Tahitian wife. Did you see, many years later, the absolutely grotesque story of what happened one night at the club? The 350-lb manager and one of the little strippers were having fun after hours, strung out on coke, I guess, on top of the piano that mounted up to the ceiling on some sort of hoisting device. She was lying on top of him. The piano got set into motion; she was crushed to death between the ceiling and the guy. Really weird. For years I tried to cast a story around it that I could sell to EQMM or AHMM but could never find the handle.... PS in French, the club would be the Con d'Or, which has an entirely different, yet somewhat apropos, meaning. Hayford Peirce 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- The dancers were so delighted at being visited for newlyweds that they were buying us drinks. I knew enough to limit my intake, and also had the body mass to metabolize them. Eventually, I am told, I was the only man ever invited into the ladies' room of the club, but it was a rescue mission.
- Unfortunately, the next morning, she did not take my advice that Eggs Benedict are not good things when one is hung over. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
But I was there
In Cardiff last year for the Grand Sslam match against France! Ticket was a Christmas present... of course before the season had started. :-)Gareth Leng 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Notes
- ↑ An important reference here
AIS disambiguation
It seems amusing to think of androgen insensitivity and gender in the context of commercial fisheries, in which the gender of some of the catches can be a rather pliable thing. You are right, however, to disambiguate the abbreviation, regardless of how ambiguous the gender of some marine invertebrates may be. :>; Howard C. Berkowitz 18:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Comments about the sub-workgroup proposal in your User talk:Chris Day/sandbox1
Chris, I just want to let you know that I have posted comments in your User talk:Chris Day/sandbox1. Milton Beychok 23:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Re: your note on my talk page
>Sekhar, Just to note that the approval process is not exactly transparent. It would be great if you >have any ideas on how to make it more user friendly. Your NMR article looks great. Chris Day 16:21, >17 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I could have just ASKED someone. But I am reticent by nature and I tried to find the procedure for nomination in the 'dive in' instructions.
The procedure seems fine (now that I know what to do). It may be helpful to others if you could add the following to the end of the 'article mechanics' section in 'dive in' "....leave a message on those editors' talk pages and invite them to take a look and see if they might be ready to approve the article. You can also use the mailing lists to see if you can get others to take a look. When you all agree, then use the metadata template! ....D. Matt Innis 15:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC) " Thanks for the encouragement and help.
Sekhar Talluri 18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Darwin's Health
It seems odd to describe the health of a dead person, pretty much a one line article (lol). Have you considered retitling of this article? Darwin's mystery illness? What killed Darwin? or something like that? David E. Volk 21:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think the title is final. It was a title that Larry made as a stop gap to stop the topic dominating the main article. Chris Day 21:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- On the bright side, one can safely say that it will be never necessary to deliver bad news about declining health to a corpse. True story -- we had a very good surgical pathologist at Georgetown, who, knowing a patient was scheduled for a biopsy, would sometimes visit with the intent of getting insight from history and physical. Some patients didn't know what pathologists did, so didn't mind. Others really understood and liked the idea.
- We had a couple, however, leap out of bed and run down the hall screaming I don't want an autopsy! Howard C. Berkowitz 21:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
- except for the untimely dealth of the patient, the procedure went extremely well.
David E. Volk 21:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Seen this?
- Darwin's Gift electronic flip-book of essays written for The Lancet :-) Gareth Leng 11:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hayford Peirce internet link
Hi Chris, I just discovered a few days ago that the link no longer worked; evidently it was at some sort of AOL storage and, being AOL, they suddenly just folded up that particular shop with no warning to anyone. I've emailed the guy who created the original site asking if he has founded a new one, but have had no reply. :( Hayford Peirce 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Template
Chris, in Rubidium I see °C in the wrong font. It is hidden in a template so I cannot change it.--Paul Wormer 16:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It should be a regular-sized roman capital, now it is too small. --Paul Wormer 17:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- It is OK now, thanks. --Paul Wormer 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Never before having thought of warfarin as a source of improv comedy
I was persuaded otherwise when you managed to connect it to the Great Depression, and wait, with bated breath, to see if you also connect serotonin agonists to the Great Depression.
Nevertheless, the trend continues with your last tweak; not many people can do a bibliographically correct link to Link. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
1. P-KR3
I noticed that one of your links in the "Chess Strategy/Related Articles" list was "Opening (chess)". There already exists a page at "Chess opening". What's your pleasure -- should the article be renamed and moved, or should the link in "Related Articles" be changed to point to the existing article? Bruce M.Tindall 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. (It's not my naming convention, by the way -- "Chess opening" was already there, and I think it was originally titled by Jonathan Bashears.) Bruce M.Tindall 21:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Ideal gas law approval just finished by Matt
Chris, I note that:
- You had to jog the protected version of the article to get it to display in the workgroups (which you also had to do recently on another approved) article. Does that mean that, from now on, you will have to jog protected versions of approved articles? Is there not some way that Matt can do that when he protects the approved article so that it all gets done at one time?
- The protected version lists the workgroup and subgroup categories at the bottom of the main article page. However, the bottom of the main page of the draft article does not show the categories. Instead it displays "Contents" and "Tags" and most of them are red ... the only blue ones ar "All content" and "Chemical Engineering tag". Why is that?
Confused as to why the workgroup and subgroup categories don't also show at bottom of the draft main article page ??? Milton Beychok 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- First, no the jogging only needs to occur if the metadata is set to approved AFTER the article is protected. We must set up a protocol for approval that has the final edits and protection being on the article page.
- Second, I striped the draft page of the categories since they served no purpose. The approved categories replicated the draft categories. Also every article name in the category ended with "/Draft" that is unsightly, so there is a very good reason to stick with the approved categories on the main article. Also bear in mind our readers will read the main article. Historically the old /Draft categories was actually a kludge solution to allow recent changes on the draft version to be tracked. However we now have the tags which are far more efficient and are used to track all change in any given workgroup seen by clicking on "recent changes" in the workgroup (or subgroup) page header. If you would like the categories visible it will be possible to have them at the top of each draft page. That might even be preferable?
- Lastly, the tag categories are still red links (and the content ones) because we have not systematically populated those pages. Hold off on that since I need to tweak the workgroup template so that the appropriate text appears at the top of each page. The ones that have been done, notably the Category:Biology tag, have been set up manually, rather than automatically. I'll fix this soon. i am still trying to figure out how the tag categories can be 'hidden' since they are only meant to be utilized by the workgroup "recent changes" option, not by users for browsing. Chris Day 04:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)