Talk:Phosphorus/Draft: Difference between revisions
imported>David E. Volk m (Is order of events the problem? Status=0 before copy to draft?) |
imported>Chris Day |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
Did you change the status to zero before moving copying/moving the main page to draft? That might do it. | Did you change the status to zero before moving copying/moving the main page to draft? That might do it. | ||
Perhaps the order of events is the problem, not the actaual events themselves. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:58, 11 March 2008 (CDT) | Perhaps the order of events is the problem, not the actaual events themselves. [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] 13:58, 11 March 2008 (CDT) | ||
:I was thinking something similar. One problem at CZ is that category updates are very slow (by design but don't ask me why, other than it speeds things up). Give this a day and see if we still have a problem. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 15:02, 11 March 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:02, 11 March 2008
Before approval
I made a few minor changes (see diff). Before approval I would like to add some remarks about
- the history of the element and origin of name
- phosphorus is not phosphorescent
- role of d-orbitals in binding
Here a dilemma arises. I would enjoy writing these additions, but then I lose the right to approve the article on my own (in that case David and I need a third chemistry editor, at least, this is how I understand the law). I will contact Larry Sanger about this dilemma.--Paul Wormer 04:01, 21 December 2007 (CST)
References
David Volk asked Milton Beychok here to approve this article. Milton answered here that the article needs more references. That is why I added two (Stillman and Ketelaar) references.--Paul Wormer 03:40, 27 February 2008 (CST) PS. IMHO this distributed discussion is a serious weakness of the Wiki system.
- I arrived here today to find a ToApprove template indicating that three editors have edited and approved this article. The above documentation by editor Paul Wormer illustrates that there are no longer any issues hindering approval.
APPROVED Version 1.0
Congratulations Chemistry editors! --D. Matt Innis 22:39, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
This approval included an edit that moved the TOC to the left that was considered a copyedit. If there is any problem with this, please let me know and I will remove it. --D. Matt Innis 22:39, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
- Why is Phosphorus > Draft also in the approved category? (Chunbum Park 10:14, 11 March 2008 (CDT))
- I have no earthly idea [1]. Everything looks to be in place. Could it be a template bug or did I do something different? --D. Matt Innis 10:29, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
I think that is the way it is supposed to work. Life/Draft has the same look to it, because the whole cluster gets approved, not just the main page. David E. Volk 10:37, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
- But Life's draft isn't in the Approved category? --D. Matt Innis 12:47, 11 March 2008 (CDT)
Did you change the status to zero before moving copying/moving the main page to draft? That might do it. Perhaps the order of events is the problem, not the actaual events themselves. David E. Volk 13:58, 11 March 2008 (CDT)