User talk:Gary Leonard Cameron

Welcome!

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started for other helpful introductory pages. It is essential for you as an editor to join the Citizendium-Editors (broadcast) mailing list in order to stay abreast of editor-related issues, as well as the mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. Aleta Curry 22:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Hi Gary, I see you're a little concerned about creating two articles on the same subject. there are a couple of things you can do:

• You can put the Speedydelete template on it.

or

you can replace the text on one of the pages with REDIRECT (there's a button for it on the editing page).

Incidentally, you might want to hold off on doing anything until you've talked to some of the other history authors/ reviewed the other battle articles/looked at this thread [1] -Derek Hodges 22:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Derek, your reply was informative as was the tread you directed me to. I'm sure both of your solutions would work perfectly. However, I am going to defer to someone more familiar with all these things. I am utterly new at this. I'm getting used to using colons and tildes. It will take some time before I'm ready to learn what a template does and how, where, when, and why I can or should deploy one. I don't know what a REDIRECT does. I'm sure it's useful since you have suggested it as an option.

I'll be looking forward to whatever solution to the duplicate page problem the other History editors or other people who know more than I do suggest.

Please be patient as I gradually assimilate this new technology. I'm very grateful for your willingness to assist me in this way.

The link you gave me provides a great deal of food for thought. I would like an instruction as to how to fill out the metadata alphabetizing field. I'm glad there is an Editorial Council with official naming policies. If a final decision hasn't yet been reached on that matter, I'll eagerly await one.

Thank you, Gary Leonard Cameron 23:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(The) Battle of - you know, the one Napoleon lost

Hola

I'm a little confused. Are you saying you want the proper cluster to be at Battle of Waterloo? If so, shouldn't we make the changes there, and blank The Battle of Waterloo?

I'll go with your preference, pending an EC decision. Just let me (us) know!

Aleta Curry 01:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Aleta,

I'm posting my reply on the forum so everyone who understands this from a technical side can explain the solution.

I am confused because I'm not sure how to best correct the issue.

Summary to date:

I'll paraphrase what Matt wrote to me in an e-mail. He said pick one article, make all the changes there, then the two articles can be merged. I've included Matt's e-mail to me directly below.

So even though I wasn't sure which article to pick, I picked one. I picked that one for the sole reason that "having filled out the metadata form appears to have made that article more official. I do not understand those things well at this point."

I now believe the word "The" should not be in the article title. However, "The Battle of Waterloo" article appears to my uneducated mind to be official because of the metadata form. Am I right about the metadata form being the start of making official article pages, official article discussion pages, and official article definitions? Also, what is the correct way to alphabetize "Battle of Waterloo" on the metadata page?

My other questions are: Can "The" be removed from the title? Should everything from the "The" article be cut and pasted into the "Battle of Waterloo" article? What about the metadata form? Should I fill one out for the non-"The" article? Will filling out a metadata form for the "Battle of Waterloo" article mess something up if the article is already in existence? If so then should someone who knows how first delete the "Battle of Waterloo" article as a precursor to filling out a metadata form in order to correctly bring that article into existence?

The e-mail Matt wrote to me said, "To be honest, I'm not sure which title is the preferred, so, as Derek suggested on your talk page, let's wait to see what others think the title should be. You can go ahead and continue to write on either article (but just pick one). I can make sure that the one you edited ends up with all the edits by merging the two later."

Sincerely, Gary Leonard Cameron 01:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, we're on the same page now. Here's my take on things:

You're correct; it's 'Battle of', no 'The'. I checked our other 'Battle' articles Hastings, Gettysburg...etc.

We'll follow along with what you've done so far and ask a constable to swap 'em over later.

Can "The" be removed from the title? No, that cluster has to be redirected or deleted. Should everything from the "The" article be cut and pasted into the "Battle of Waterloo" article? We could, but I think a wholesale move later will be best, so do nothing if you haven't already. Should I fill out [a metadata form] for the non-"The" article? Eventually, yes. Will filling out a metadata form for the "Battle of Waterloo" article mess something up if the article is already in existence? Normally not, but whether or not a metadata form exists has ramifications for how easy it is to move things. In this case, Matt is aware of the problem and knows he will have to fix this up later, so do not lose sleep over it.

If so then should someone who knows how first delete the "Battle of Waterloo" article as a precursor to filling out a metadata form in order to correctly bring that article into existence? I know exactly what you are asking, but I don't know the answer to it. Dan Nessett or Matt Innis could give us an immediate and accurate answer.

Your understanding of our clusters (our word for the main article and all its subpages) is correct. Filling in the metadata form creates the cluster - subpages and definition, how the article is categorised and filed - in the way the author wants. We hope. I can't think of anyone who has never run into a situation where they've done something that they didn't like in metadata and had to fix it themselves later or, if complicated, ask someone else to fix it for them.

We run into these problems largely because intelligent people can usually make a case both ways. Because of this, we can change our minds, or do it differently next time just because we don't remember what choice we made before! You think you got troubles now, boy? Just wait! ;) Is it Smooth Fox Terrier or Fox Terrier, Smooth? Or fox terrier? Or Terrier, fox? Is that lovely lady Queen Elizabeth, or Queen Elizabeth II, or Elizabeth II of...England, the United Kingdom, Great Britain - well, you can just imagine. We usually get through the decisions with good-natured humour, compromise and some very bad jokes, but there have been some gosh-awful battles ('battles', ha!) too.

Have I helped at all? If not, keep asking.

Aleta Curry 03:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You have answered everything and more. I am so glad that others are conversant and knowledgeable about the technical aspect of this. It's a steep learning curve for me.

Thanks for your help today. Gary Leonard Cameron 04:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm so glad. We get used to the process and forget how much there is to learn. There are some great people here (in both senses of the word) so feel free to ask away! Aleta Curry 05:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Planet#Etymology_and_history

I rewrote this some time ago. You might like to check it. Peter Jackson 08:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this piece out to me. I've given it a quick look see and believe you have done a good job. Thanks for making this contribution.

The text you showed me could use very minor style improvements, but it's not a problem.

I may one day add a final sentence or perhaps you'd like to write that sentence. The only idea I'd add is that the "Pluto controversy" continues in popular culture to some degree. You are correct that the professional astronomical community is not invested in further discussion on the topic of defining planets. Astronomers have 10 to the nth bigger fish to fry.

I hope this feedback feels helpful to you. I certainly don't mean to be critical. I hope we all help each other with feedback.

I'm new here and it's been a great experience. Thanks for reaching out to introduce yourself. Cheers, Gary Leonard Cameron 16:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It's certainly true that astronomers have better things to do with their time. Although some astronomers disagree with the official definition, it wasn't even on the agenda at the next IAU congress. And the concept of dwarf panets doesn't seem to be given much importance either, judging by recent books I've looked at. I suspect it was rather a sop to the opposition.

It might be intersting to know what astrologers make of all this. There's obviously no reason for them to take any notice of the IAU, but I've no idea how many planets they now recognize. That might be beyond your field of expertise too. Peter Jackson 10:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I know astrology's place in history which allows me to speculate about the reaction of astrologers. Most astrologers practice tropical astrology which means they haven't decided to change their work though precession of the equinoxes has shifted the locations of the constellations and now makes the days the Sun actually is in each particular house of the zodiac or constellation quite off from what those days were about 2,000 years ago when Ptolemy set up the system being used in Western but not Chinese astrology. Taking precession of the equinoxes into account means an astrologer practices sidereal astrology.

Based on tropical astrology being more popular than sidereal astrology and the fact that Western astrology was based on Ptolemy's work at a time when Uranus, Neptune and Pluto were not known, I doubt astrologers will have much trouble adapting since they don't need science for what they are doing.Gary Leonard Cameron

Formatting refs

Hi, Gary, & welcome to CZ. At Sirius you put two references in the reference section, which is very logical - but wrong! The way to make them work is to put them between the two ref things that are currently producing all the red ink. I'd do it for you but there are three ref places in the text but only two refs down the bottom, so I don't know which apply to which. Hope this helps; if not, let me know. Regards, Ro Thorpe 18:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ro, I was just reading your talk archives. Thanks for explaining how to fix the problem. The other preliminary problem is citing my encyclopedia entry. Now that I've found my source I can cite the actual source instead of myself. I get it done but not immediately because I'm working on the job that pays my bills.

Thanks for your help. Regards, Gary Leonard Cameron 18:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

You are in good hands, if Ro is helping you. I went to take a look at the article and the article looks just fine. I use the Reference Maker tool Reference Tool Maker to create the needed references. Once the references are created using the tool maker, copy and paste the reference info next to the paragraph. Paste the reference next to the paragraph. The Reference Tool Maker will tell you the basics. You can check an article I contributed to see what I am writing about: Western Sandcherry. Matt Innis, who is a CZ Constable, kindly shared this information with me. Mary Ash 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Mary. That sounds like a great short cut. I've done a lot of reading on CZ about how to do things. It will take me a while to learn the technical aspects but I will learn them. For now I'm focusing on using semicolons and tildes. I still don't understand the correct order of the steps in creating an article, a metadata page, a discussion page, and a definition. After I've got those under my belt I'll work on adding subjects to the bottoms of pages. Gary Leonard Cameron 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Basically, Gary, keep doing what you're doing. You're doing better than I did when I started!

A bit of help with the steps: there's not really a 'correct' order, there's a) what works for you, and b)what happens at each data entry stage and c)getting error messages if you, well, make an error. Like, filling in the metadata form but forgetting to click 'save'. Or typing a different title in metadata than the one you used to start the article.

If you 'create an article' but put no code on it, you'll fine your text printed and no subpages, i.e., what we call a 'cluster' is not created, and it looks like a WP page. If you type (or paste) your text and put the word 'subpages' at the top, with no inverted commas but instead enclosed in two sets of curly brackets, you'll start the cluster process and be prompted to do the metadata. (Click the link that offers you editing via the 'metadata form', it's more user friendly than the page with all the fields looking like a design page.)

You don't have to set up a discussion page or any of the subpages per se, that happens when you put the word subpages in the double brackets at the top. The metadata form is where you add all the stuff about how you want this page set up and indexed; how it's filed alphabetically, what disciplines it falls under, does it need any special subpages other than the standard ones (usually not) does it need any special workgroup (usually not) AND it's also where you type the definition. Here's the rub: if someone has already made a definition for articlename, your new definition will not overwrite it. If you think their definition is dreadful or needs tweaking, you have to do that manually. It's accessed via the discussion (talk) page. Click the talk tab. Now look for the word 'definition' and a little 'e' (edit) in square brackets to the right of it. (To create just a definition, as when you don't know enough or don't have the time for writing an article, you can type articlename/definition into the search bar, and you can use the same form for editing the definition or any subpage.

After you have created the cluster, if you need to edit the metadata, it's a bit of a bother to find it again, until you have memorised where it is. On the first line (all the tabs in grey) at the right is a little purple button and just below a little amber button marked with a capital M. That's where you access the metadata. On approved pages it's accessed via the discussion (talk) page. Click the talk tab.

Hope I'm helping.

Aleta Curry 23:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aleta,

I think I understand better. I know I am learning. I can now edit a metadata form though I don't want to at the moment.

So much feels new to me at this stage. It's reassuring to have so many people willing to pitch in when I make a mistake or rush through my writing with inaccuracies.

I especially want to thank you for the time you've spent helping me.

Gary Leonard Cameron 00:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)