User talk:John Stephenson/Archive 4

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Absence

I have taken a long(ish) break from Citizendium, not because of any problems I've experienced, but just because I'm 'CZ-ed' out as it were, and off-line life is a-calling. I may well return next year. John Stephenson 18:41, 10 November 2007 (CST)

Awww.....

Well, fair enough, but the parties won't be the same without you. Come back to us soon, okay? Aleta Curry 01:46, 5 December 2007 (CST)

Welcome back!

Good to have you back, or at least not inactive, as you say! --Larry Sanger 20:57, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks!

Thank you Larry and Aleta! I'll be dipping my toes back in the water here and there... John Stephenson 21:00, 13 February 2008 (CST)


Hey!

Wonderful to see you around. :-) Stephen Ewen 21:12, 13 February 2008 (CST)

CZ International

Hi! I’m just letting people who have expressed an interest in CZ International know that there is now a proposal on the table.

Please discuss its feasibility at: CZ:Proposals/Internationalisation sandbox in the Discussion area.

Feel free to help develop the proposal, as well.

We'll also need "drivers".

If you've got no idea what I'm talking about, please refer to: CZ:Proposals/New and CZ:Proposals

Aleta Curry 18:14, 14 February 2008 (CST)

Varieties of English

Hello, I have a pedagogical piece called 'British & American English' which lists the differences in spelling & pronunciation. If you've seen my stuff you'll know the sort of thing. I was wondering if you could advise me on where exactly to place it. I could produce a second, AmE to BrE, version & append the two to your articles; or I could make it a separate article, but then there arises the problem of what to call it. 'Varieties of English'? But you seem to be the expert on that subject. Please advise. Ro Thorpe 18:38, 13 March 2008 (CDT)

Barack

Sorry - didn't see you altered it. But my version is what the Americans on CNN all say. The Brits tend to your version, I agree, or they just say 'Barrack', but I think we should have it as the man says it.

Thanks for your note, by the way: I'm thinking about it. Ro Thorpe 13:18, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Hi - see Talk:Barack Obama#Pronunciation of 'Barack'. John Stephenson 02:25, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Differences between British and American English

or some such, as you suggest, seems to be the best option, as I have quite a lot of stuff, but only on those varieties. I'm going to ask around about the best title. Thanks for the advice. Ro Thorpe 18:43, 17 March 2008 (CDT)

Your proposal on Romanization

Hello. The proposal record for "Romanization", for which you are listed as driver, says that the current step (to develop proposal page and request feedback from other contributors) was due to be completed 11 March. Could you please update the proposal record on CZ:Proposals/Ad hoc, changing your self-imposed deadline and perhaps the next step? If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. -- The Proposals Manager, Jitse Niesen 09:47, 18 March 2008 (CDT)

Wales

I reverted the changes, asking for the author to explain his objections and discuss them on the Talk page first. Thanks for the info, Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:44, 31 March 2008 (CDT)


subpagination

Hello John, I hope my see also explaination made sense. If not, feel free to add them back in. The subpagination business is much easier than it used to be, and so it literally takes no more than 60 seconds to do it. Give the system a go if you haven't tried doing it in awhile. David E. Volk 08:26, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

Romanization

I have changed the CZ:Proposals/Ad_hoc#Romanization next step and target date as it is likely to be resolved by May 02, 2008. Supten Sarbadhikari 00:14, 28 April 2008 (CDT)

Redirects

Way to go (at Ju-on)! Thanks! J. Noel Chiappa 13:40, 27 May 2008 (CDT)

Culture

Do drop in John (at culture that is). Aladin 08:50, 9 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks

Hi John! Thanks for having corrected my English prose.--Domergue Sumien 15:06, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

No problem, and welcome to Citizendium. It is a relief to have some more linguists on the wiki! John Stephenson 15:29, 18 August 2008 (CDT)

I saw him standin' there.... (told you guys I could keep this up)

I noticed! here he is! Aleta Curry 22:01, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Travel(l)ing through North America at the moment and it's wall-to-wall Sarah Palin on CNN, so... John Stephenson 22:04, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

subpages template

John,

Sometimes I deliberately do not put {{subpages}} on a page. Most commonly, this is a situation when the title is in flux and I don't want to create metadata that is likely to change. In other cases, it's a relatively short article undergoing active writing, and I'd just rather not have half a page of metadata reminders cluttering the screen.

There is a discussion about topics that really aren't more than a definition. Chris Day has some complex ways about making these work with R-templates, which have complex interactions with definitions and metadata. I'm still trying to understand his logic, which I think will make sense but is clearly not trivial.

Anyway, it's one thing if you plan to fill in the metadata, definition, and so forth. If not, may I ask why you are just putting {{subpages}} but not doing anything else on them? Is it meant to be a reminder of some sort? You may have a very good reason, but it isn't obvious. Do note that you can create a talk page without metadata.

Howard C. Berkowitz 19:30, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

It's because I intend to create the metadata templates in a batch (today!). I would suggest that if you are going to create pages without the subpage template, then add workgroup categories from the outset - otherwise, the pages are practically invisible to other users. John Stephenson 20:30, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
I suppose it's not always the intention to make pages immediately visible. There are times, when an article is going to be extensively linked, where it's not practical to test it in userspace. That is one reason for not necessarily trying to make the article visible, or at least through categories. There are a number of Forum discussions on dealing with some of the more obscure issues, such as how naming interacts with R-templates.
I was certainly puzzled to be finding subpages added with nothing else, and no explanation either in an edit summary or talk page. There well might be a good reason, but this was confusing.
If you want to work on these articles, great! I might suggest, though, that if you find no metadata, create a talk page, which doesn't require a metapage, and discuss what you want to do with the article. When I know others are working on articles, I try to discuss, on the talk page, how we might split up a first draft. When I haven't done this, I've had the sad experience of being in mid-flow, stopping for dinner or other biological breaks, and finding work minutes, or hours, old being redone while I still had material to type.
I'm pleased to find someone with wide interests, as are my own. It did seem a little ambitious to deal with angiography, the Battle of the Beams, Baghdad, etc., on the first day. Again, it's useful to discuss plans to avoid conflict with others. Angiography is not too critical, but the Battle of the Beams, in my mind, links heavily with other articles in electronic warfare, signals intelligence, etc. Again, a little discussion beforehand can save much aggravation. It might make sense for either one of us not to make changes for a short time, just so the other can get their material written without getting into micro-level conflicting changes. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:55, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
It is troubling to find your work torn up - though that's the nature of a wiki, I suppose. I wasn't doing that, though - merely adding templates. I still think *categories* are necessary from the outset (not necessarily the subpages template), to get people onto the Talk page or into the article itself. In the case of Baghdad, no-one had edited that for over two weeks, probably because there were few links across the wiki to it. See also the forum. John Stephenson 21:22, 4 September 2008 (CDT)
Seriously, we can agree that you can take responsibility for articles. That's not an issue. There is, however, an ongoing discussion if categories are indeed useful, especially if the particular topic is going to be little more than a definition. Baghdad and angiography were put there as stubs because there were a distracting number of magenta links.
Battle of the Beams was in limbo while I'm working on some more general things about air campaign planning. What were you thinking of doing with it?
I've also responded to your forum comment. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:36, 4 September 2008 (CDT)

New Manga Sandbox Pages

Hi, John. Thanks again for your encouragement. I've created a set of Sandboxes for revising the manga articles. They're listed at User:Timothy Perper/SDBXIndex with links and brief descriptions. Please feel free to come by and comment! Timothy Perper 10:42, 27 September 2008 (CDT)

Editing and Rewriting the Manga Article

Hi, John. I've got material on manga at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga and I'd like you to come and look at it and comment. Matt Thorn and I will be working on the material a good deal more -- a good deal! -- so your comments are most welcome.

Second, can I ask your permission to make a change in the present manga article? I'd like to create new articles (stubs) for the manga you mention: Astro Boy, Black Jack, Sazae-san, and Doraemon, simply by taking what you have already in the manga article and moving each one to its own individual page. Then the sections can be deleted from the manga article without losing anything. Is this OK with you?

Thanks.

Timothy Perper 06:19, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

No problem - in fact, I'll do that myself. I will leave the {{subpages}} tag off for now in case we need to change the article title (if you start an article with subpages and then decide to move it to a new title, it's a pain because /Metadata and other subpages have to be moved separately, and of course /Metadata's content must be changed too). John Stephenson 03:35, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Just so you know I made a template to allow you to move things a lot more easily. See talk page navigation bar at the top-left and look for the Move Cluster link. Its not perfect by any means but it does simplify the process. Chris Day 03:54, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Thanks, John and Chris! (I just had an edit conflict, so I'm putting this in again.)
I'm still making extensive changes in the User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga draft. The article was originally on Wikipedia (I wrote most of it, laboring under the usual Wikipedia handicaps) and it needs some serious reworking. I'm planning on taking the material from the existing article on manga and weaving it into the introduction of the new one and then putting all the new material into the manga article. Any suggestions would be a great help. Matt Thorn told me he's working separately on the history of manga in Japan -- or I assume that's what he's doing, since it's his area of expertise. Do you have any objections to my taking the introduction and using it with what I have already?
I don't know how to handle /Metadata (yet), so I won't touch any of that. I'll leave it to you experts for now.
Thanks for your help! Timothy Perper 03:58, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

OK, what I have done is move the manga article (but not its Talk page or subpages) to History of manga. I cut almost everything except the introduction - you can use this on the page or in your sandbox as necessary. John Stephenson 04:09, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

Thanks. But I want to make sure that we're all on the same page (pun intended) here. I'm rewriting the material in my sandbox User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga to replace the manga article, not to create a "History of Manga" article. There's a good deal of non-historical material in the TP sandbox piece, and the history isn't complete. I'd rather hope that Matt Thorn, who is an expert in the history part, can add a good deal from his knowledge of Japanese sources to the history article, but I see the sandbox material as less specialized than being purely or even primarily a "history." Which is why it's in a sandbox -- to add new topics.
I hope that's clearer -- my apologies if there's been any confusion. Timothy Perper 04:28, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Oh, okay. Well, the history of manga article can be deleted as it stands and you can just use the material as it appears in your sandbox as you like. John Stephenson 04:32, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
Great -- sounds good. Can you help me figure out what went wrong on User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga? I moved the comments to the discussion page (fine, no problem) but the page itself has an indented subsection I can't eliminate, the material you added inserts references into the main reference list, and the tildes don't always give my name. I've tried several fixes and they don't work. Do you know how to fix this? Thanks. Timothy Perper 05:12, 1 October 2008 (CDT)
OK, I got some fixes to work. Not ideal, but they work. Now I'll go back to fixing up the references. Timothy Perper 05:30, 1 October 2008 (CDT)

New manga article is ready to put in

Hi, John. The new manga article is finished and is at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxHistManga. If you have time, can you come over and look at it? If it seems OK, then I'll replace the old article in the next day or so. Thanks. Timothy Perper 12:34, 9 October 2008 (CDT)

I've copied and pasted the draft material to the Manga and Manga/About this Article pages. Thank you very much for your patience and support! Timothy Perper 07:16, 10 October 2008 (CDT)

Need some advice

Hi, John. I wonder if you have a few minutes to share some advice with me. It starts like this -- in the new manga article, there's a section on YAOI manga and it mentions that the popularity of the genre has grown. It so happens that I've been following the advent of YAOI websites since 2002, and I made a graph of the data (the graph is on my talk page). The question is whether or not I should put it into the manga article (as a subpage, I assume). It certainly shows the dramatic increase of interest in YAOI since ca. 2004. These are my own data -- not that I collected them as part of a real research endeavor -- and I'm not sure of the CZ policies about such things. If you have the time, would you look at it and comment on what I might do? Thanks! I like the links you're putting into the manga article -- very useful! Timothy Perper 16:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The new YAOI material plus graph is at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxManga. If there's no reason not to include it as a subpage, I'll add it in the next day or so. Timothy Perper 22:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I was unsure about this, so I decided to throw it open to the CZ forum here. The CZ policy on 'original research' is incomplete at the moment - so I suppose, strictly speaking, you would not be outside any rules if you were to upload the image on a subpage. After all, you are doing so in good faith here and if it is found to be 'original research' it can always be deleted. Still, I would wait a day or two for opinions elsewhere to emerge. John Stephenson 06:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, John. I added a comment to yours on the Forum page. I don't see how in the world this example could be considered original research, not at least by the standards of CZ -- after all, no one would say that this graph needs peer review. But people have different ideas, so let's wait a day or so.
Second, did you notice that your Forum signature at the bottom has your last name in black? When clicked upon, it leads to an empty page for User:John, not User:John_Stephenson. The same thing happened to me when I was filling out the form for the Forums, and it turns out that you need to add an underscore between the "John" and the "Stephenson" parts. Or at least that's what I had to do when it happened to me.
Timothy Perper 13:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Difficult, but it seems that this little graph is not going to turn the wiki upside down. :) Re* the sig - thanks; I've been posting for ages and have never noticed that before. Corrected now. Either I'm unobservant or something has changed. John Stephenson 07:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree -- it's a mild enough little graph, merely reporting some numbers, no analysis, no theory, just some numbers. And it won't overturn anything -- not CZ, not the world of manga, not the world of YAOI fans. Oh well. I'm going to let the discussion continue for a while, then add the graph as a subpage to the manga article. If I were to do that right now, I suspect that Chris Day would delete it upon sight, so I'm going to wait a while. Timothy Perper 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's melodramatic. You asked for opinions and I gave you mine. I never indicated i would delete it. Chris Day 15:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Romansh

Hi John. I'm sorry but I haven't reviewed yet your article about Romansh. I promise I will. At the moment, the only thing I can do is adding some little tidbits here and there in Citizendium.--Domergue Sumien 21:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Write a Thon Wednesday

Are you coming? Aleta Curry 23:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyedited Margaret Thatcher but I don't think that counts. :) John Stephenson 08:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno--I might let you slide! Aleta Curry 05:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:John_Stephenson/Archive_4&oldid=408139"