Sub-workgroups

[Chris Day]

We have ignored this to date since there has not been a critical mass within the workgroups to justify forming sub groups but it is a reality they will have to exist in the future. The breadth of some workgroups is huge so it makes sense to break down into more natural sub groups.  Within biology and engineering whole departments are formed based on the discipline of one subgroup. For example, Chemical Engineering or Botany.

Clearly each subgroup will be under the umbrella of a parent workgroup, nevertheless, we do need a way to distinguish the article of interest for each subgroup. One solution is to tag each cluster with the subgroup category on the main article only. This one tag solution is the simplest solution and does not require additional tags to denote the different subpages or article status. i have initiated such a strategy within the subpages templates and used the Chemical engineering article as a guinea pig. I have set it up so that sub1, sub2 and sub3 are active in the metadata template. 

Currently the chemical engineering article is also designated as being in the Chemical Engineering Subgroup. The category is on the article page only. Is this a good strategy?

[tkjazzer]

I trust your strat.

I have been wondering for a while if I should bring up "Biochemistry" as a workgroup, but I think it may fall in to a subgroup for now.  Maybe when a critical mass is reached it could go up to a full workgroup. 

Will there be a somewhat easy way to change a subgroup to a full workgroup in the future?

also, side note, are subpages locked down with approvals? are they easily watched? are they monitored in the work-groups' recent changes? 

I really like the progess CZ is making.  It is getting ready to take off...

[Milton Beychok]

Chris:

Yes, it is a good strategy to work from. But altho the category "Chemical Engineering Subgroup" now appears at the bottom of "Chemical engineering" article:

(1) The category "Chemical Engineering Subgroup" does not appear at the bottom of the now approved "Chemical engineering/Draft" article. Is there a metadata sheet for the Draft?

(2) When I click on the "Chemical Engineering Subgroup" link, neither the locked-down approved article or the Draft article actually appear listed in the subgroup. Is that because you haven't gone that far as yet?

(3) When a person (who is not a registered user familiar with navigating CZ) comes to the CZ encylopedia to seek knowledge in the chemical engineering field, where will he/she easily find a list of the categories and subgroup categories ... so that he/she can get to the "Chemical Engineering Subgroup"?

Milton Beychok

[Chris Day]

(1) The category "Chemical Engineering Subgroup" does not appear at the bottom of the now approved "Chemical engineering/Draft" article. Is there a metadata sheet for the Draft?

It uses the same metadata and there could be a category there too. But would that be redundant?  Everything would be listed twice, or do you think a separate [[Category:Chemical Engineering Subgroup Draft]] is needed too? Since only draft versions are approved that could well be a useful subset.

(2) When I click on the "Chemical Engineering Subgroup" link, neither the locked-down approved article or the Draft article actually appear listed in the subgroup. Is that because you haven't gone that far as yet?

It takes the server a while to add them.  It is low on the servers priority list. It should be there in the morning.

(3) When a person (who is not a registered user familiar with navigating CZ) comes to the CZ encylopedia to seek knowledge in the chemical engineering field, where will he/she easily find a list of the categories and subgroup categories ... so that he/she can get to the "Chemical Engineering Subgroup"?

It will show up as a subcategory in the Engineering Workgroup category.  If i add the draft category too I would probably add that as a subcategory of the Chemical Engineering Subgroup category.

Thus   Engineering Workgroup -->  Chemical Engineering Subgroup --> Chemical Engineering Subgroup Draft

[Milton Beychok]

Chris:

I don't think we need the Draft subset. Once a persons sees an article in the Chemical Engineering Subgroup and clicks on it, when he gets to the article he will see that there is a Draft version of the article.

What a person (who is not a registered user) needs is an explanation that the Draft is really the latest version of the article ... because that is not the usual common meaning of a draft. But I guess that's a separate issue that needs to be addressed some other time.

Just in case, I haven't made it clear, I really appreciate your work and effort on getting subgroups set up. Thanks,

Milton Beychok

[Chris Day]

I set up the drafts before I saw your reply above, this can all be undone, so there is no harm in testing it.

Note that drafts are a distinct subset in that they are also associated with an approved version of the article.  While the drafts might be the latest version, it is not necessarily the best or most accurate. Which is why they are not approved. I guess you could think of them as the "next draft".

The reason for having the draft category is it was needed to be able to use recent changes to track updates to the approved articles. You can see that link at the top of the engineering workgroup category. You can either track recent changes to all articles, which is effectively only unapproved articles since edits to an approved article are very rare (they're protected). Or you can see recent changes to the draft articles, which is effectively updates to the approved articles.  Does this make sense?

Now a few random thoughts:

I'll try and make a generic subgroup specific header that can be used for these subgroup categories.  Hopefully as simple as adding a template {{Workgroup|group=Engineering|subgroup=Chemical Engineering}} or similar.

In the long run I would imagine it is up to each work group how to organise their respective subgroups. I think this is preferable to having to go as high as the editorial council as with new workgroups. I see no reason why the subgroups cannot come and go depending on the various interests of editor and authors in each workgroup. Thus, workgroups become a fixed collection that rarely change while the subgroups can be more fluid within each workgroup.

As far as biochemistry, i cannot envisage a scenario where such a subgroup would be a workgroup on its own.  What I can envisage is a subgroup called biochemistry that exists in three different workgroups, Health Sciences, Biology and Chemistry. Thus, subgroups represent a subset of editors from a workgroup but can also be vehicles for collaboration between different workgroups. In this regard, I will try and set up an experimental biochemistry subgroup and see how such a collaborative environment might look.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I have been wondering for a while if I should bring up "Biochemistry" as a workgroup, but I think it may fall in to a subgroup for now.  Maybe when a critical mass is reached it could go up to a full workgroup.
Will there be a somewhat easy way to change a subgroup to a full workgroup in the future?

I'm wondering if that's really what we want (to have all groups at the 'top level', as it were), or if we want to have some sort of hierarchy. I thought that responsibility for policy on article quality etc devolved from the Editorial Council, and down through the workgroups. So it might in fact be desirable to have e.g. all Engineering sub-groups report to the Engineering workgroup, so that if the Engineering workgroup wanted to have some policy be consistent across all engineering sub-areas, it could do so.

I really like the progess CZ is making.  It is getting ready to take off...

Yes, that's my sense too.

Noel

[Chris Day]

So it might in fact be desirable to have e.g. all Engineering sub-groups report to the Engineering workgroup, so that if the Engineering workgroup wanted to have some policy be consistent across all engineering sub-areas, it could do so.

I made some additions to my post above while you wrote this.  We agree on this point.

[Milton Beychok]

Chris, I have added 9 of my chemical engineering developed articles and my 2 draft articles to the Chemical Engineering Subgroup ... and it seems to be working very nicely.  I would like to add the other 30 of my chemical engineering developed articles. Would that be jumping the gun? Please let me know.

One other point. Let us assume that I am a chemical engineer coming to CZ for the very first time to seek some help on a chemical engineering subject. When I arrive at the home page, I see the five icons at the upper right of the home page and I click on "Applied Arts and Sciences". When I get there, I don't see "Chemical Engineering, but I do see "Engineering" and so I click on that.

When I get to the welcoming page of the "Engineering Workgroup", I still don't see the "Chemical Engineering Subgroup". What I do see is a section headed "Proposed Subgroups", but each of those simply takes me to an article ... for example the Chemical Engineering article. There is no way provided for getting to the Chemical Engineering Subgroup (or any other subgroup that may be formed in the future).

I suggest that the welcoming page of the ''Engineering Workgroup'' needs another section entitled "Active Subgroups" that lists the active subgroups. Is it okay if I edit that welcoming page to add such a section ... or would I be jumping the gun again? Please let me know.

Milton Beychok

[Chris Day]

Chris, I have added 9 of my chemical engineering developed articles and my 2 draft articles to the Chemical Engineering Subgroup ... and it seems to be working very nicely.  I would like to add the other 30 of my chemical engineering developed articles. Would that be jumping the gun? Please let me know.

I'd suggest waiting to see what comments we get here.  You may have to re-edit them all again. If that is no problem for you, just go ahead. Remember to delete the cat one after adding the sub one.

I suggest that the welcoming page of the ''Engineering Workgroup'' needs another section entitled "Active Subgroups" that lists the active subgroups. Is it okay if I edit that welcoming page to add such a section ... or would I be jumping the gun again? Please let me know.

Yep, each work group will need to have a prominent list of subgroups. You could set that up now as part of this experiment. If we don;t try things now we are less likely to sees the flaws in our strategy. Remember everything can be switched back if we don't like the way it looks.

[Milton Beychok]

Chris:

Now that the Chemical Engineering subgroup is established and working, is there some way to "broadcast" to others the fact that subgroups can be established? For example, author and editor Anthony Argyriou has written a good many articles in the field of Civil Engineering. Perhaps, he would be interested in having a Civil Engineering subgroup.

Milton Beychok

[Chris Day]

I'd say there are still a few things to work out before broadcasting the concept.  One is the template that should go at the top of each category.  I just added the engineering one but I want to rewrite that template to be more specific to the chemical engineering sub group.  I had forgotten about that but will get it done.

Also are we going to set up a specific subgroup page?  I thing that will be important too.

[Milton Beychok]

Chris:

Would you please also set up an Environmental Engineering subgroup as you did for the Chemical Engineering subgroup?

One is the template that should go at the top of each category.  I just added the engineering one but I want to rewrite that template to be more specific to the chemical engineering subgroup.  I had forgotten about that but will get it done.

Also are we going to set up a specific subgroup page?  I thing that will be important too.

 

I really don't understand what you meant by the above quote. I am not that computer literate. Would you please explain what you meant?

Thanks in advance, Milt

[Aleta Curry]

I'll only say that ever since I started following this, I've been wondering how other workgroups can get in on this subgroups deal.

Some topics are lumped into a 'super-workgroup' i.e. an umbrella group with other subjects with which they have little or nothing in common.

Hark!  Am I singing that 'let's-fix-the-workgroups' song again?

[Chris Day]

Milt, all I meant was that we want a way to distinguish the subworkgroup pages from the main workgroup page. Obviously there is a heirarchy and hopefully the template at the top will reflect that hierarchy. For example, The link to "All Articles" which is at the top of workgroup pages links to all chemistry workgroup articles.  That is now true for the chemical engineering subworkgroup too, however, it would be better if there was a link to all articles in the subworkgroup as well as, or rather than, to all the chemistry articles.

I'll give some serious thought to this and get it done. I have been distracted by the periodic table templates recently.

Aleta, you can start creating subworkgroups.  Just use the metadata template.  Currently workgroups are designated by cat1, cat2 and cat3.  Right now you can also use sub1, sub2 or sub3 to designate a subworkgroup (See some of Milt's pages in chemical engineering for examples). In your articles, you'll see a lot of red links appear at the bottom of the page but that is no real problem.  Once I have a subpageworkgroup page format established those red links will turn blue. Just drop me a note if this does not make sense to you.