Sub-workgroups

[Aleta Curry]

Chris, I believe I followed your whole post.

I may be delusional.

I'm going to give it a go.

[Larry Sanger]

Chris, can you please make this into a proposal or, if you want to skip the proposal system, a resolution that an Editorial Council member can put before the Editorial Council?  This needs careful thinking and discussion, and while I might want to support this, I want to grok how it fits into the big picture.

I'm not so comfortable with us simply implementing something with such potentially sweeping effects without Editorial Council approval.

[Chris Day]

Chris, can you please make this into a proposal or, if you want to skip the proposal system, a resolution that an Editorial Council member can put before the Editorial Council?  This needs careful thinking and discussion, and while I might want to support this, I want to grok how it fits into the big picture.

I'm not so comfortable with us simply implementing something with such potentially sweeping effects without Editorial Council approval.

No problem

[Milton Beychok]

Wow!!! Chris, in your test layout of the Chemical Engineering subgroup, we now have:

1. An alphabetic list in two colums of all articles, with the status of each article

2. An alphabetic list in a single column, with the status and the definition of each article

3. A list of all the articles in four columns, one column for each status category (0, 1, 2, 3,or 4) and without the definition of each article

4. A listing of any subcategories in the subgroup (and the pages in those subcategories) without the status or definition of each page (article)

5. A listing of the pages (articles) in the main Chemical Engineering subgroup without the status or definition of each page (article)

For what its worth, I think that the only one we need is item (2) above, with the following caveats:

* Put single spaces into item (2), the single column list, to separate articles staring with A from articles starting with B, and to separate articles starting with B from articles starting with C .... etc.

* Include a one-line footnote (as I have done on my user page) to explain what each of the little status images indicates.

You are really to be commended for putting that much work into this!!!

Milt Beychok

[Chris Day]

You are really to be commended for putting that much work into this!!!

First, it was not much time.  I just stole the list of your page and formatted it in a variety of ways. Second, I don't expect the pages to look like this, I'm just letting you some of the options for listing subgroup articles. I envisage that each subworkgroup will develop in different directions.  Also, in the long run, the home for any subworkgroup should be at [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]].  Or do we like the idea of just hijacking the Category namespace for this role?

[Milton Beychok]

Also, in the long run, the home for any subworkgroup should be at [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]].  Or do we like the idea of just hijacking the Category namespace for this role?

I simply don't understand what you mean by the two options of "hijacking" the Category namespace or being in the [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]]. I want to be able to list the Chemical Engineering subworkgroup in the metadata pages of the articles (the way it is now) so that: (a) the Chemical Engineering Subgroup appears in the categories listed at the bottom of each article's main page and (b) the articles will be automatically listed in the Chemical Engineering Subgroup page in whatever of the 5 above formats is selected. If either or both of your options in the above quote do that, then I leave it up to your best judgement.

Milt Beychok

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

At least in the case of chemical engineering, isn't it more of a case of creating a "foo-workgroup" that is neither a strict subgroup of the groups of engineering and chemistry, but a different kind of knowledge organization where two or more workgroups overlap?  I run into this problem with intelligence organizations and techniques, which has tended to default to military and history, but also often involves scientific disciplines. For example, nuclear weapons proliferation monitoring arguably hits Military (weapons), History (policy about nuclear weapons and proliferation), Physics (the principles of operation), Engineering (implementing those principles), Law (treaties) and Politics?  Radar arguably is in Physics, Engineering and Computers (the latter for modern radars).

I'm not sure "subgroup" really conveys the underlying reason for creating such a "heading".

[Aleta Curry]

snip!  I'm just letting you some of the options for listing subgroup articles. I envisage that each subworkgroup will develop in different directions.  Also, in the long run, the home for any subworkgroup should be at [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]].  Or do we like the idea of just hijacking the Category namespace for this role?

Yes, exactly.  Different subgroups might like options, the way the workgroups have now. 

At least in the case of chemical engineering, isn't it more of a case of creating a "foo-workgroup" that is neither a strict subgroup of the groups of engineering and chemistry, but a different kind of knowledge organization where two or more workgroups overlap?....  I run into this problem with intelligence organizations and techniques, which has tended to default to military and history, but also often involves scientific disciplines. For example, nuclear weapons proliferation monitoring arguably hits Military (weapons), History (policy about nuclear weapons and proliferation), Physics (the principles of operation), Engineering (implementing those principles), Law (treaties) and Politics?  Radar arguably is in Physics, Engineering and Computers (the latter for modern radars).

I'm not sure "subgroup" really conveys the underlying reason for creating such a "heading".

I don't think there's a quick answer, Howard.  We've long recognised that we have (at least) two issues: 

1.  Interdisciplinary workgroups
2.  Subgroups, i.e. subsets of a workgroup.

What you're now pointing out is that some subgroup may also be interdisciplinary.  We can't get too terribly hung up on this--just put the topic into two or more subgroups.  After all, there are plenty of articles that fall into one or more workgroup, in fact there are whole disciplines that fall into more than one workgroup, remember.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

After all, there are plenty of articles that fall into one or more workgroup, in fact there are whole disciplines that fall into more than one workgroup, remember.

What is the correct workgroup for sloth? Oh, religion probably claims it, but that always seemed contradictory -- how can you commit a sin by not committing anything?

[Chris Day]

Also, in the long run, the home for any subworkgroup should be at [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]].  Or do we like the idea of just hijacking the Category namespace for this role?

I simply don't understand what you mean by the two options of "hijacking" the Category namespace or being in the [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]].

Currently we are using the category namespace for the Chemical Engineering subgroup page, but usually those pages are not developed beyond a short description of the articles listed in such a category, if that. It would make a lot more sense to have the Category page and a subgroup home at [[CZ:Name Subworkgroup]].

I want to be able to list the Chemical Engineering subworkgroup in the metadata pages of the articles (the way it is now) so that: (a) the Chemical Engineering Subgroup appears in the categories listed at the bottom of each article's main page and (b) the articles will be automatically listed in the Chemical Engineering Subgroup page in whatever of the 5 above formats is selected.

First, having a home for the subgroup other than the category page will not change the categories at the foot of the article. They will always be listed in the category, however, at the category page the only automatic list will be in an alphabetical order (based on the abc field in the metadata).  My reason for adding other list formats was to point out that we do not have to restrict ourselves to an automated alphabetical list if someone is willing to manage them manually, using the article status or other info we have available in the metadata.

I'm not sure "subgroup" really conveys the underlying reason for creating such a "heading".

I agree this might be confusing. Let's be clear that a sub-workgroup can be interdisciplinary.  For example, Aleta is working on the Dogs Sub-workgroup page.  Clearly that will be a sub-workgroup of both biology and hobbies. The only reason it uses the prefix sub is that it imples a more narrow focus within any workgroup.  It does not, however, preclude inderdiciplinary participation.  Maybe focusgroup would be a better term? Any other ideas?

[Milton Beychok]

Chris, first let me say that upon consideration of your explanation, I agree with you that subworkgroups should have their home in [[CZ:Name subworkgroup]].

Then let me say that I much prefer the term ''subgroup'', ''sub-workgroup'' or ''subworkgroup'' (without the hyphen). Engineers of all disciplines (mechanical, civil, electrical, chemical, environmental, aeronautical, etc.) will eventually be coming to CZ and they will most probably immediately seek out the Engineering Workgroup ... and they will then most probably try to seek out articles or to write new articles in their particular discipline be it chemical engineering, mechanical engineering, civil engineering, etc. They would naturally expect to find a subgroup of the main Engineering Workgroup devoted to their discipline. Seeing the words "chemical engineering focus group" would be more alien to them than would be the words ''chemical engineering sub-workgroup" or "chemical engineering subworkgroup" or more simply "chemical engineering subgroup".

After all, the physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, earth science and other natural sciences all have workgroups, so why should the arts and applied sciences be relegated to being focusgroups instead or workgroups? Being an engineer myself, I believe that the applied sciences are just as important as are the natural sciences .. and I am fairly sure that the arts people also believe that are just as important as the natural sciences.

Of course, many articles in any of the engineering disciplines will and should be listed in more than one category. Many of them may have chemistry content, physics content, mathematics content, and even some biology content (especially in chemical and environmental engineering articles dealing with biochemical oxidation of wastewaters and in designing pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities). Surely that is very simply taken care of by the authors listing the appropriate categories in the Metadates templates, is it not? So I don't think the fact that many engineering article will be multidisciplinary need have any bearing whatsoever on choosing names such ''subgroup, sub-group or subworkgroup''. Having such subgroups in place will be helpful in recruiting new authors and editors.

Please excuse me for being so long-winded, but almost all of my points made here are the same as those I raised on February 2008 in [[CZ:New Workgroup Requests]] and were strongly supported by Noel Chiappa in March 2008. Chris, in fact, that was the reason why you got interested in this and first created a test subworkgroup that is now working quite well on a test basis.

Milt Beychok

[Chris Day]

Of course, many articles in any of the engineering disciplines will and should be listed in more than one category. Many of them may have chemistry content, physics content, mathematics content, and even some biology content (especially in chemical and environmental engineering articles dealing with biochemical oxidation of wastewaters and in designing pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities). Surely that is very simply taken care of by the authors listing the appropriate categories in the Metadates templates, is it not? So I don't think the fact that many engineering article will be multidisciplinary need have any bearing whatsoever on choosing names such ''subgroup, sub-group or subworkgroup''. Having such subgroups in place will be helpful in recruiting new authors and editors.

I agree with all of this. I also prefer subgroup, which is why I started with that term. No term is perfect.

[Aleta Curry]

...Let's be clear that a sub-workgroup can be interdisciplinary.  For example, Aleta is working on the Dogs Sub-workgroup page.  Clearly that will be a sub-workgroup of both biology and hobbies. The only reason it uses the prefix sub is that it imples a more narrow focus within any workgroup.  It does not, however, preclude inderdiciplinary participation.

Yes, indeedy.  To take it further, [[Australian Herding Dogs]] could well fall under biology, hobbies and agriculture (they are vital to farmers, just in case that isn't clear]]; [[Lassie]] will be dogs, [[Lassie (television series)]] will be dogs and visual arts, [[Lassie Come Home]] will be Hobbies, literature, visual arts and subgroups dogs and film, or wherever these topics end up.

We clearly need something like [[CZ:Name Subgroup]].  Whether it's called subgroup, subworkgroup, focusgroup or Tuesday afternoon busybee is much less important to me, I would only say that, as Milton points out, the name should be consistent whether you're in hard science, humanities or sports.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

Of course, many articles in any of the engineering disciplines will and should be listed in more than one category. Many of them may have chemistry content, physics content, mathematics content, and even some biology content (especially in chemical and environmental engineering articles dealing with biochemical oxidation of wastewaters and in designing pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities). Surely that is very simply taken care of by the authors listing the appropriate categories in the Metadates templates, is it not? So I don't think the fact that many engineering article will be multidisciplinary need have any bearing whatsoever on choosing names such ''subgroup, sub-group or subworkgroup''. Having such subgroups in place will be helpful in recruiting new authors and editors.

I agree with all of this. I also prefer subgroup, which is why I started with that term. No term is perfect.

Do you see editors specifically for subgroups, or in addition to those covering other groupsS

[Chris Day]

Do you see editors specifically for subgroups, or in addition to those covering other groupsS

I think there could well be subgroup specific editors. I believe this is what we already call specialist editors, although I can't find the discussion that relates to this topic.  (See point three in the message below)