A level above workgroup, such as "general science"

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

This came up a while ago with the idea of general science (and engineering) editors, but a pre-approval chat with Milt Beychok gave me an idea last night. Along with finding Larry's older idea about "push" mailings to workgroups, I think it may be worth taking a closer look at the whatever we call the taxonomic term that is above workgroup.  Especially given our current size, the push mailings might be easier, encourage interdisciplinary work, and avoid conflicts if they were targeted at the supra-workgroup level. Given that the initial set of workgroups was a good approximation we agree is imperfect, this might remind people of collaborative opportunities that they otherwise might not notice because the topic was in a workgroup they didn't normally monitor.  There also is an opprtunity for FAQs at that higher level.

That's the executive summary for Larry, who now can read or not read further lest I be too verbose. I did add headings. 

FAQ: Naming articles; to disambiguate or not
The point last night was that certain terms, in an article under engineering and earth sciences, have specialized meanings in atmospheric modeling (air pollution modeling specifically), which seemed familiar to me. Milt pointed out that at The Other Place, seemingly general terms actually had narrow term-of-art meanings in specific disciplines. An author could use a term and not know that it is ambiguous, but, for example, might see a term being defined for mathematics and realize "that has a different usage in computer science'. Searching for the article string to find both disambiguated and non-dsambiguated meanings is a good idea, and I'd put that in a FAQ.

If the term hasn't yet been used in an article, searching won't help. For example, "brigade" has military and food science usages. All I can suggest is "disambiguate early and often".

Alternate supra-workgroups
There may also be some "supra-workgroups" mailing lists/FAQ for related subjects under different hierarchies, such as biology, healing arts, and health sciences.

Somewhere in there may be a way to test where new topics, for which there is not a clear workgroup, should go, such as "dance".

[Aleta Curry]

I think we all became weary of the when-and-how-to-disambiguate discussion.

My own feeling was use main meaning if there is one, disambiguate everything else.

If multiple meanings would immediately pop into the average person's mind, then disambiguate all.

Now, before you start, Howard, lemme tell you that of course there were all sorts of arguments on all sides.  'Who says what is the main common meaning'--or common, main meaning--whatever--was the big one.

I have always held that if intelligent, reasonable people insist on being intelligent and reasonable,   Yeah, you can argue about it, but baker is a person who does nice things with flour and sugar, doesn't matter how many other d**** bakers a contentious person can come up with.

I also like how you point out, Howard, that

'there are seemingly general terms actually had narrow term-of-art meanings in specific disciplines.'

and
' An author could use a term and not know that it is ambiguous, but, for example, might see a term being defined for mathematics and realize "that has a different usage in computer science'.'

All very true, but once again, a person bent on being cooperative rather than antagonistic simply for the sake of argument or 'principle'--using inverted commas advisedly in this case--knows she's using language that has another meaning in general parlance, or realises once it's pointed out to her, that she is using specilised language and assuming it's generic. 

To use something peculiar to me (why do we only talk in terms of hard science?), let's take [[coat]].

Is there anyone here who doesn't know that a coat is a garment?  Or who wouldn't agree, in all fairness, that a garment would be the first thing most people thought of?

Now, I know that coat is the pelage of show animals.  I daresay a painter or builder would have a different idea. We would only insist on the main entry for [[coat]] being a disambiguation page if we were being perverse!

Enter [[coat (disambiguation)]]

If you don't come up with some guidelines, you end up with silly disambiguations over obscure meanings when the common meaning is perfectly clear.

[Hayford Peirce]

At least we're never gonna need a disambiguation page for Aleta or even Hayford. Two less things to worry about at nighttime....

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I think we all became weary of the when-and-how-to-disambiguate discussion.

My own feeling was use main meaning if there is one, disambiguate everything else.

If multiple meanings would immediately pop into the average person's mind, then disambiguate all.

Now, before you start, Howard, lemme tell you that of course there were all sorts of arguments on all sides.  'Who says what is the main common meaning'--or common, main meaning--whatever--was the big one.

I have always held that if intelligent, reasonable people insist on being intelligent and reasonable,   Yeah, you can argue about it, but baker is a person who does nice things with flour and sugar, doesn't matter how many other d**** bakers a contentious person can come up with.

I also like how you point out, Howard, that

'there are seemingly general terms actually had narrow term-of-art meanings in specific disciplines.'

and
' An author could use a term and not know that it is ambiguous, but, for example, might see a term being defined for mathematics and realize "that has a different usage in computer science'.'

Aleta, respectfully, these were not common terms; I did mention general science in the title. The discussion came up with respect to Milton's article on air dispersion model terminology, and the terms in question were variously statistical (e.g., Gaussian or Lagrangian), or, referring to things I'll loosely call topological such as point, line, and area. While I happened to understand his particular context, he quite properly reminded me that if I was thinking of Gaussian or Lagrangian distributions in other fields I knew, such as communications engineering or electronic intelligence, the usage, while having some theoretical principles in common, were quite different in application.  Radar point sources are far smaller than air pollution point sources.

The question was whether to use disambiguation, or, his preference, a glossary. There are arguments either way, but, in the technical usages in question, there really is ambiguity.

As a quite decent breadmaker, but also a military specialist, if a ship's cook heard "Two-block Baker" over the public address system, he would not assume a fellow chef was being hoisted to the yardarm, but would rush to turn off all fires. The Baker flag (WWII phonetics, but still traditional) being two-blocked (hoisted to the top of the signal mast) says that loose explosives are being handled. No, I don't think Baker normally needs to be disambiguated, but I definitely might do so in a naval article.

I am being cat scanned at the moment, but it's Rhonda on my arm; there is no computerized axial tomography in process.

Disambiguation is a very real problem in technical language; we've had a number of collisions, for example, between terms in pure math and the specialized applied math of computer science.

[Aleta Curry]

At least we're never gonna need a disambiguation page for Aleta or even Hayford.

One would think, but I did get mixed up with another Aleta in New York City once several years ago.  True.  Context is everything.

Aleta, respectfully, these were not common terms; I did mention general science in the title.

Yes, I got that.  I wasn't actually arguing with you, either you missed that bit or I didn't make my point well enough.

The discussion came up with respect to Milton's article on air dispersion model terminology, and the terms in question were variously statistical (e.g., Gaussian or Lagrangian), or, referring to things I'll loosely call topological such as point, line, and area. While I happened to understand his particular context, ...& c.

Yes, I got that bit too, at least I thought I did.  And I agree with you.

Evidently I put this badly.

My only intended points had to do with when there is common usage, whether or not it has another meaning or several different meanings in different disciplines, or even similar but slightly shaded meanings in related disciplines, for example, a very common noun that has other usages.  I see no reason to disambiguate [[baker]] just because there's also [[Howard Baker]], [[Sir Samual Baker]], [[baker's dozen]] or [[Baker's Delight]].

I was NOT suggesting even for the slightest moment that you didn't have a point when it came to Gaussian or Lagrangian distributions, whatever those may be, in other fields of which I am completely ignorant.  (That's not 'field', a verdant expanse of land.)

There is Guinness.  There is only Guinness.  [[Sir Alec Guinness]] is one of my all time favourite actors, but there is still only one [[Guiness]]!!!  The book and the folks who created it notwithstanding.

[we digress for a moment]

Lo and behold, Google actually agrees with me.  I typed 'guinness' and went directly to the Guinness website!!  I did not pass Go or collect $200!!

[we now return you to your regularly-scheduled programme]

The question was whether to use disambiguation, or, his preference, a glossary. There are arguments either way, but, in the technical usages in question, there really is ambiguity.

Did you think I was disputing this?

As a quite decent breadmaker, but also a military specialist, if a ship's cook heard "Two-block Baker" over the public address system, he would not assume a fellow chef was being hoisted to the yardarm, but would rush to turn off all fires. The Baker flag (WWII phonetics, but still traditional) being two-blocked (hoisted to the top of the signal mast) says that loose explosives are being handled.

Yes, but if Ship Life magazine were interviewing SomeAppropriateRank Smith, military chef, in the galley (it is a 'galley' on a galley boat ship, isn't it?), and asked about his bakers, Chef would surely not start talking about flags?

No, I don't think Baker normally needs to be disambiguated, but I definitely might do so in a naval article.

Yes, yes, and YES!!!  That's the point.

I am being cat scanned at the moment, but it's Rhonda on my arm; there is no computerized axial tomography in process.

'Cat scanned' my Aunt Matilda.  Tell the truth, Rhonda is using you as a cushion.

Disambiguation is a very real problem in technical language; we've had a number of collisions, for example, between terms in pure math and the specialized applied math of computer science.

It's a very real problem elsewhere, too, which is why it gave us all a headache.  (No disambiguation needed.)

[Chris Day]

And guess what you get if you google 'coat'?

Reaction Diffusion Equations and Animal Coat Patterns









OK I lied, it was actually; drum roll:


The Burlington Coat Factory  (80% off end of season sale, by the way)

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

'Cat scanned' my Aunt Matilda.  Tell the truth, Rhonda is using you as a cushion.

Rhonda is more of an activist. She will happily join in telephone conversations on the speakerphone, especially if her name is mentioned. I once passed a financial telemarketer to "she who makes the investment decisions (none, at the time), Rhonda". He said "Hello, RHONDA", and she responded with a "MMrtp?" which apparently was interpreted as a "yes, go ahead, grunt." She kept him, with various responses, in conversation for a good 5 minutes before I heard a bellow "I'm talking to a $(@& cat!" ***SLAM****

Occasionally, I have a working teleconference with colleagues in home offices, and the cats have decided to take over the conversation with apparently insulting comments to each other. The humans were laughing too hard to have any technical discussion, anyway.

Mr. Clark, on the other hand, is much closer to a medical scanner. He is quite good in going into a room, selecting the person in the most distress, standing on their lap if available, putting paws on shoulders (he's big) in a cat hug, and vigorously licking one's nose.

[Chris Day]

I once passed a financial telemarketer to "she who makes the investment decisions (none, at the time), Rhonda".

I pass them to my three year old.

[Hayford Peirce]

There is Guinness.  There is only Guinness.  [[Sir Alec Guinness]] is one of my all time favourite actors, but there is still only one [[Guiness]]!!! 

For many years I had a French friend in Tahiti (whose most memorable moment was having once danced with Brigitte Bardot) who could speak about six words of English, in two phrases: " Guinness Is Goot fer You." And "Johnnie Walker, Still Going Strong."

[Milton Beychok]

Oy, vey!! As my father used to say: "For this, we have to go to college??"

Milt Beychok

[Aleta Curry]

And guess what you get if you google 'coat'?

Reaction Diffusion Equations and Animal Coat Patterns



OK I lied, ...

Oh!  You got me good, Chris!

She kept him, with various responses, in conversation for a good 5 minutes before I heard a bellow "I'm talking to a
$(@&
cat!" ***SLAM****

Oh, you lie like a rug!!
Splitting my sides (Joe got tired of hearing about my bladder control problems!)

Oy, vey!! As my father used to say: "For this, we have to go to college??"

Aw, c'mon, we're funny, admit it!