User talk:Russell D. Jones/Archive 1

Metadata

(In response to this post):

Yep, that's great! Just remember, the pagename is the actual name of the page (should be the same as the URL and in the wiki) and abc is just how it's categorized by. Also, there is no precedence for categories (yet) so whatever order you wish to put them in does not affect which workgroups get priority (if any really). --Robert W King 16:04, 19 November 2007 (CST)

Jefferson & Channing

The debate subpage is a valuable innovation in CZ! Richard Jensen 17:01, 23 February 2008 (CST)

It was already there. It was an unused subpage category. I just don't get where Channing is critical of Jefferson, though. I didn't see it in the couple chapters that I read.--Russell D. Jones 17:34, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Channing ridicules Jefferson's contempt for the navy. pp36-7 Richard Jensen 18:48, 23 February 2008 (CST)

I still don't see it. Channing is matter of fact. He explains Jefferson's attempt to entice Samuel Smith to become Secy of Navy (from which comes the oft-reproduce quote about laying up the fleet in the Potomac River), and then the appointment Robert Smith. He concludes his introductory paragraph, "Jefferson and Gallatin were certainly most desirous to limit naval expenditure in every possible way but they reckoned without the North African pirates. Indeed instead of laying up the ships high and dry on the shore they were obliged to send fleet after fleet to the Mediterranean and to build new vessels better suited for work in those waters" (37). I don't see ridicule unless one reads that paragraph as just dripping with sarcasm. --Russell D. Jones 19:41, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Channing says it reminds one of Queen Elizabeth who objected to letting the fleet sail because it might damage their paint. TJ and Gallatin hated the navy and wanted to put it in storage (and TJ even joking that it would be destroyed by their "plunderers"]Richard Jensen 19:48, 23 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, but that's not exactly what Channing writes. And really, ER has a point. They were nicely painted ships. Jones.

Definitions updates

Russell, I replied with the following on your Forum question:

Russell, the Need Def page will not update for an article with a new definition until the corresponding Talk page has been edited and saved. You might have noticed that I have lots of "blank line for Need Def" updates on every page to which I add a new definition.

So, update the Talk page with a blank line or even just a space, save the edit. Then refresh the Need Def page and you should see the article name now removed from the list. 13:04, 15 December 2008 David E. Volk

David, this is not an elegant solution. There are 784 pages in the history work group that are so tagged. I don't think that this two step process of (1) writing the definition and then (2) editing the talk page just in order to update the tag is efficient. I didn't see anywhere that this was explained, either. And, no, I didn't see your "blank line" anywhere. I'm just inclined to ignore the tag. Thanks. Jones. 18:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Since the 14th edition (and maybe earlier), the Chicago Style has recommended dropping the use of commas in names ("John Quincy Adams Jr." not "John Quincy Adams, Jr."). I'll look at the forum. Russell D. Jones 00:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Grrr. Another step in the downward path to utter intellectual degeneration. Hayford Peirce 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC), Jr.

Cheer up Hayford, we still use commas for nonrestrictive adverbial clauses and introductory participial phrases. Russell D. Jones 00:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are the relevant rules.

• Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed., §6.49; 14th ed., §6.53.
• http://www.middlebury.edu/administration/communications/info/jr.htm

Contrarily, see Kenneth G. Wilson, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (Columbia, 1993).

I'm a Fowler's Modern English Usage, Second Edition, guy myself. (I note that my New York Times Manual of Style also omits the comma. No wonder I don't use it....) Hayford Peirce 16:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well The Times is a newspaper, and newspapers are notorious for poor grammar because proper grammar (as well as proper usage) is expensive in terms of column space and ink. Newspaper publishers always know that what their journalists write doesn't ring the cash register bells as quickly as advertisers do. And if it comes down to a choice between proper English and advertising space, guess which side wins. So, for me, a newspaper style guide is a better doorstop than a style manual. -- Jones.

Vision ... blurring ... sight ... fading

I started poking around regarding models and found CZ:NOT. I don't know. Everything that I've put up here, and at WP, has been original research (I'd never admit that over there, though). Everything I write comes from my own head. Some of it is synthesized, but most of it is me attempting to understand things. I write to understand. I've been thinking about writing a series on railroad history, but too many articles would be really short stubs, definitions mostly. Not allowed here, but necessary for building comprehension and understanding a complex topic. I'm not really sold on the encyclopedia ideal. WP wasn't an encyclopedia; it was more like an "academic simulation;" The editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica called WP the "encyclopedia game." The more I think about this, the blurrier it gets. Russell D. Jones 15:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to talk to Howard. We have been discussing the idea of allowing very short articles as opposed to stubs. For some topics only a small amount is needed to be complete. I think he has a good point and we have been thinking how to fold this into the current system. Certainly such articles would be useful for related articles subpages to give context to longer articles. Chris Day 16:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't over-intellectualize things to the point where utter paralysis sets in. Just write what you want, in a more or less encyclopediac way, and let, if necessary, other people have at it with axes and knives and forks and screwdrivers and other tools to turn it into something that Larry can be proud of. Hayford Peirce 16:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it depends on what you mean by "short" -- how short is "short". If you wrote: "The Rock Island Line is a mighty good line." as an entire article, that would probably be too short. If you added a couple of more sentences to it, and maybe hummed a couple of bars, that ought to be OK. Hayford Peirce 16:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not the stubs I'm worried about; I'm experienced enough here to know to just type. It's more the original research angle. I don't think we're writing an encyclopedia. Russell D. Jones 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hayford's advice is correct. We will not throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm pretty sure we're saner than that. I'll leave a note for Howard to join here as i cannot find where he outlined his need for short articles, but it sounded similar to yours. With respect to OR are you sure it is not just synthesis? Clearly a writer has to decide the angle and resources that will be included, especially for history. Is that OR? Why don't you write some examples and it will be easier to discuss the content with regard to OR. Chris Day 16:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about original research. Most of the more active contributors do it all the time. It just needs to be kept within the bounds of what would be accepted in the discipline, be supported, and be balanced. The Wikipedia original research rules, which were simply grandfathered in here in a lot of ways, are designed to keep me from writing an article about guinea pigs that says their diet consists primarily of their own poop because mine ate his all the time when I was little. --Joe Quick 16:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Joe, that's my point. "Most of the more active contributors do it all the time." See my Henry Adams. Synthesized, to be sure, but also my original take on H.A. (and unfinished). I prefer what we do here to writing an encyclopedia (I've written "real" encyclopedia articles). Russell D. Jones 18:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If we start *really* worrying about original research, we're gonna end up like WP, in which some articles now, as far as I can tell, either have a footnote on every word or a "citation needed" template. In that way lies total madness. We ought to be able to write: "Winston Churchill was a British statesman" without having 4 footnotes on it to prove that we know what we're talking about. Hayford Peirce 16:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot resist, apropos screwdrivers, mentioning my regret that over the years, I lost my copy of the General Telephone & Electronics Practice, "Screwdriver: theory of operation, use, and maintenance."

The short article discussion started in a wide-ranging discussion at CZ Talk: Usability. At User: Howard C. Berkowitz/Strong Articles, there are notes toward a first proposal for the non-orphaning policy, but it does not include what Chris and I have called the "lemma" problem because we didn't a good handle, and Larry wanted an actionable proposal.

If we can get a handle, great! I'd much rather see the proposal be submitted with it than without it. While at some levels it complicates things, I'm not convinced that the overhead of clusters for everything may not be a deterrent to the main goal of encouraging linking.

It's not just an issue of original research, but also original synthesis. The latter, when it is a neutral guide of how to approach a complex subject, certainly can be peer reviewed here, assuming an adequate number of peers. A CZ...ummm..."how to approach a subject article" really can't be outside-reviewed or depend on external sources, as much of it is specific to navigating CZ, organizing subarticles, etc.

At least in Internet engineering, there are quite standard documents, such as "framework" complementing "architecture", and "applicability statement" complementing detailed specification (think subarticle) that are considered required parts of the process. The set of documents that define the Internet's mechanisms aren't exactly an encyclopedia, but they also differ from some less-implementable but more formal standards. They are, however, the result of an intense collaborative process, although the term "full-contact design review" is sometimes considered apt. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what others have said above--don't worry about original research. Or, if you want, give us (or just me, if you want) an example of an article, or some text, you think is original research, and why you think it's original research. The notion of original research is admittedly vague, especially when it comes to things like historical analysis. It may or may not help to look at this essay-in-development about original research, and the fact that original research policy here is based on the Statement of Fundamental Policies line stating, that our articles are "based on common experience, published, credible research, and expert opinion." This is what CZ:Approval Standards says: "Articles should be aimed to serve as excellent encyclopedia articles, and thus are summations of what is known about a topic. Hence, while articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. In other words, they should not contain original research or observations." Well...? --Larry Sanger 17:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On this I would add that CZ is published and it is peer-reviewed by our experts in their fields; so is CZ:Approval Standards circular? Meaning: we can (should?) include O.R. because we vet it? Russell D. Jones 18:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll bite...we shouldn't, because we don't vet it, or not properly. We are set up to vet text qua encyclopedia articles. We are not set up to vet text for the original research it contains. There is a difference.

Still, Russell, I again would say: don't worry about it right now, unless you have some specific cases you want to point out. --Larry Sanger 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Maxwell

Could you please have a look at Clerk Maxwell and see if it is "approvable" from the point of view of an historian? Thank you.--Paul Wormer 13:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell, I saw your remarks, and I would prefer that you improve the article rather than approve it. It is true that a single editor is not allowed to approve it, after (s)he worked on it, but three editors can. So after you've improved it, you, I, and a third (probably a physicist) can approve it. I'm sure we will find a third person, so please go ahead and change Clerk Maxwell to your liking.

With regard to the formulas at the end: Maxwell's paper gives them, but in a notation that is not easily recognizable to the modern physicist; so I translated Maxwell's math into modern notation. Because I myself find this interesting and as I'm just an ordinary scientist, I thought that perhaps more people may find it interesting.--Paul Wormer 07:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I wanted to tinker with it. My experience with the approval process is limited. In the past though, articles have been approved with a single editor. So, improve it I will. >>> Jones 08:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with it. Please take a look. Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 10:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

John Logie Baird

What do you think about approving the article on John Logie Baird? The original author is no longer active, but I would be happy to look into any adjustments to style or scope or whatever if you feel they are needed. --Joe Quick 16:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the one reservation I have is that some claims are made (e.g., that Baird's son made some comment, etc.) which are not referenced. To run that down will require some research. Other than that, I think it is a well developed article and should be approved. Do you want to move it, or are you asking me to do that? Don't we need three editors for approval?

I also think that we should get moving on Chris's proposal for subcategories as the Baird article clearly belongs in a history of technology subcategory. Maxwell belongs in a history of science subcategory. Jones 17:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an editor, so you'd need to nominate the article.

Knowing the quality of work that Russell Potter did while he was here, I trust that the claims in this article are well founded, but I agree that it is under-referenced in places. Probably, most of the article is supported by the books listed in the bibliography subpage, but I really don't have time to read all of them. I'll see if I can dig up sources using Google books and Amazon book preview searches or peer reviewed articles. --Joe Quick 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote the "Legacy" section, which was left over from the Wikipedia skeleton that the original CZ authors started with and which struck me as rather amateurish. The section isn't long, but I think it makes the article feel a bit more relevant to the present. Minor adjustments will probably continue right up until the approval deadline, but since this change was more substantial, you might want to update the version in the Toapprove section of the metadata template. --Joe Quick 18:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Done--Jones 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Co-nominated James Clerk Maxwell for approval

Russell, now that Joe Quick added the Engineering workgroup as a category in the Metadata template, I have signed the template as a co-nominator. Milton Beychok 04:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Subgroups

It's currently here CZ:Proposals/New. Chris Day 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Duh, I've been there before! Jones. 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I need an explanation of the proposal process. The Proposal (written by Chris) is now at the top of the 5 proposals in CZ:Proposals/Editorial Council. Does that mean it will be the first of the five to be voted upon? Milton Beychok 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

No. None of the proposals in the queue are yet official resolutions. None are yet before the Ed Council. To be placed before the ed council, a page named "CZ: Editorial Council Resolution ####" must be created and the resolution announced on the ed-council mailing list. Then "At that point, the Chair and Rules Committee, and the Council as a whole, take "ownership" of the resolution, and it is mostly out of your hands." Russell D. Jones 19:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Crap! Am I beginning to demonstrate too much knowledge of procedure?)

Where does the CZ:Editorial Council Resolution Subgroups which you wrote fit into the proposal process? Which one does the Editorial Council actually vote on? The Proposal or the Resolution? Please respond here on your Talk page which is now on my watchlist. Milton Beychok 16:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They way I see it is that the resolution asks the council to vote on the policy. CZ:Editorial Council Resolution Subgroups is the draft resolution; when Chris, you, and I reach consensus, one of us will give it a number and put it before the ed council as an official resolution (i.e., move it to a page called "CZ:Editorial Council Resolution ####", see CZ:Editorial Council How to Make a Resolution). CZ:Editorial Council Resolution Subgroups says that the council will vote on the policy as written on the CZ:Proposals/Subgroups page. I did not include the policy in the resolution as no other resolution on which we have voted included a policy; it seemed that the resolution often points to the proposal.

  This resolution does not require much in the way of implementation. Chris already has the templates up and running, so ed council doesn't need to ask anything of him. All we need is for citizens to start using the policy. The problem I saw was "what is the policy?" Some ed council resolutions had delegated the policy-writing portion to a committee or individual (see CZ:Editorial Council Resolution 0010). Some had adopted the proposal page as policy (CZ:Editorial Council Resolution 0009 resolved to make CZ:Proposals/Recipes Subpage and Accompanying Usage Policy accepted policy). The recipe proposal page still talks about what "could" be done, there's still discussion there, etc., all of which, according to the Ed Council resolution, is also accepted policy. The proposal system allows for discussion and debate about what the proposed policy should look like, how it will behave, what the unresolved problems are, etc. All of that stuff should not be voted on by the ed council. The ed council should vote on the policy, no? So, what is the policy? We could also propose that the ed council delegate the policy-writing to a committee or an individual and not vote on a policy; but doesn't that delegate away power that rightly belongs in the ed council?

  This may have been a long-winded answer. Russell D. Jones 19:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I take that back, CZ:Editorial Council Resolution 0007 included the policy voted upon. Russell D. Jones 20:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Russell, you have now convinced me that you are know the proposal procedure very well ... so I will leave the subgroups proposal in the capable hands of you and Chris. Since I first started to get people interested in the concept back in early 2008, I have been concerned only with getting it before the Council just as soon as possible which I feel sure that you two will do. Milton Beychok 21:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you please straighten out my confusion about subgroups and where they now stand? At this point -- without the proposal having yet been approved -- could I, for example, as an author who is under the current rules not qualified to be an Editor of anything, just on my own initiative, create, say, a "Poetry" subgroup, with the intention of having it eventually become part of the "Literature" workgroup, and invite other authors who have written on poets and poetics to join it, and to help establish the necessary subgroup-related pages, etc.? I see other subgroups being created -- e.g., Botany -- but I don't know what steps I'm allowed to take as a mere author. Whose permission do I need to do what, etc.? Thanks. Bruce M.Tindall 02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is designed so that authors can start subgroups. But this proposal has not gone before the editorial council, so any subgroup started now has the risk of being deleted in the future. Chris Day 03:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bruce, I don't see why you couldn't start such a subgroup and I don't think that CZ:Poetry Subgroup (just like CZ:Botany Subgroup) runs the risk of deletion. Seems reasonable enough. Russell D. Jones 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, it should get passed. Chris Day 16:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused on this (as on many things, of course), but we now have a Workgroup called Recreation. Under that is apparently a Workgroup (or subgroup) called Sports. Right now, listed under the Sports category, there seem to be many articles, such as Tennis, Baseball, Pancho Gonzales, Hank Aaron, etc. The people in the discussion above, who are proposing the creation, more or less at will by authors, are they saying that I, for instance, who did a lot of tennis articles when I first came to CZ a couple of years ago, could decide that there should be a CZ:Tennis Subgroup? Or, over in the Literature Workgroup, CZ:Mystery Stories Subgroup? I can see the arguments for making them. I can also see a, oh, let's say, rock 'n' roll enthusiast coming in and creating two dozen Subgroups for various off-shoots of that fine musical branch. (Orchestrated to the loud grinding of geezers' teeth). So what is actually being proposed here (informally, I understand)? Hayford Peirce 16:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you understand, although note that recreation is not a workgroup, it is a classification like "humanities" or "natural sciences". Did you read the proposal here? Chris Day 16:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hayford, yes, lots of subgroups would be a sign of health. Article approval rules still apply. Russell D. Jones 17:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't read it 'cause it's a bad link! :( Hayford Peirce 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? it should be working now. Try again. Chris Day 16:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think subgroups are an excellent way of organizing, gathering authors and boosting contributions. The only problem (and I am not sure this is one) is that there are not author enough for most of the subgroups to be created for now. Last week Chris suggested that maybe we might have a taxonomy subworkgroup, or orchids subworkgroup. I'd love that but seemed too soon for me because of the few articles I found on CZ. As I saw a comparatively huge list of editors on Biology workgroup I though: Oh well, let's start with something really appealing, a Botany subgroup. For sure there will be many authors and editors interested in joining such a wide subject subgroup. Therefore, after I started this subgroup I went on and checked the user pages of every Biology Editor to look for possible interested ones. I was very surprised to find only two or three editors which surely might enjoy joining this group, and here I am including myself and Chris. What's the conclusion? I don't know. I'm just reporting the experience. Surely I believe this will be an excellent subworkgroup in the future, although I guess some time will pass before a viable subgroup division can come out of Botany. Dalton Holland Baptista 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As always it comes back to critical mass. No doubt subgroups are not viable now, we can all work together without them. But what comes first, the community or the subgroup? Possibly we need the subgroups first? Like a nectar for CZ? I view this as a community building tool that will turn into to collaborative havens. Chris Day 17:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I particularly agree with you Chris. I'm a great fan of subgroups and will do as much as I can to help with them. For instance, few days ago when I arrived CZ and found no mention of such a subgroup here, it was a little bit disappointing, furthermore, groups are really important to CZ as its structure seems to be supported by them. It is not like WP where most of the subgroups don't really work. As soon as the groups are created many new articles are needed and it helps us to check what the areas that need more attention are. Dalton Holland Baptista 17:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

more approvals?

I hope I'm not annoying you with so many requests/suggestions. Do you think Benjamin Franklin is ready to approve? I believe it is a CZ original developed in-house mainly by User:Todd Coles. It would be nice to have an approval for such a famous figure. --Joe Quick 01:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not annoyed. Please keep them coming. 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to touch base on this, since there hasn't been any activity over there in a few days. Where do we stand on this article? Is there more work you think needs to be done to it, or are you preferring to just leave it be for the time being? --Todd Coles 17:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so nominated. Russell D. Jones 18:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you feel about Martin Van Buren? --Joe Quick 15:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Too foxy! Russell D. Jones 01:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)