The "By" field of the metadata

[Aleta Curry]

As for what is clean up.  I always thought it had two meanings:

1) If article was originally from wikipedia, get rid of all the broken image holders and links to other wiki language versions etc. 
2) Or to wikify (is that a word?) an new article that has been uploaded by someone new to the wiki envirnoment, i.e. bold the title and add wiki links, format section headers etc.

The reason I think it not that useful is that anyone adding the checklist should be cleaning up the article too.  If this is not a fair expectation then we should probably keep the clean up option. I think David Volk would have a good idea of whether this is useful or not since he has spent a huge amount of time categorising unlisted articles.

I always thought it was (1), never associated it with (2), although this makes a whole lotta sense.

*Is* it too much to expect a person adding the checklist to also 'clean it up'?  I guess it could be, if the article is long and involved.  I don't know if that should be "the rule", but I think that if that *were* the rule, and I had a little free time and said, as I sometimes do, let me just do a little something, so I check random page or recent changes or whatever and saw something that needed checklisting but needed oodles of work first, and the rule was "either clean it up or leave it alone" and I didn't have the time or inclination, I'd elect to leave it alone.

[Chris Day]

I'd elect to leave it alone.

In that case we should keep the clean up but make it more clear what it means.

[Chris Day]

All good questions and I forget what the answers are. ... Does this make any sense at all?

No... but you knew that! :-)

Noel, I thought about this some more and I now remember why I needed the url compatibility. It is so i can have preloaded pages for the Unused subpages. See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Unused_subpage_list.  I'll try the anchor as see how that works.

There is a third issue i had forgotton about too, and maybe you can solve this problem. Each tab is coded to have a nowrap style so when the tabs are compressed by a narrow browser window the "Related Article #" text remains on one line.  However, this nowrap style is not recognised by IE6 (Robert King saw this problem but it is not a problem on my computer). I could not figure out a real fix for this. 

My kludge was to define a third subpage name variant such that tab names with more than one word use a no breaking space version. In summary, I ended up defining button 1A=Related Article, 1B=Related_Articles (added for url compatability) and 1C=Related Articles (added to allow a no breaking tab text) variants. In retrospect, if I have 1C I probably didn't need 1A but I definitely need either 1A (with anchor) or 1B as well as 1C. 

What I need now is a way to code the tab template such that the nowrap style for each tab works in IE too.  The coding for the latter can be found at the the on and off buttons.  Currently i have the following:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Button_on2&action=edit

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Template:Button_off2&action=edit

I cannot trouble shoot this bug since I am unable to replicate it on my computer. If you can solve this then I can get rid of the 1C version too, leaving us with only 1A.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

why I needed the url compatibility. It is so i can have preloaded pages for the Unused subpages. See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Unused_subpage_list.  I'll try the anchor as see how that works.

That should fix it.

But that issue shouldn't affect the optional tabs, right? You don't include preload links for them (or edit links of any kind, unless the link in the tabs header is to a non-existent subpage)? So do you really need tabsNurl (or whatever they are called) anyway?

There is a third issue i had forgotton about too, and maybe you can solve this problem. Each tab is coded to have a nowrap style so when the tabs are compressed by a narrow browser window the "Related Article #" text remains on one line.  However, this nowrap style is not recognised by IE6 ... I could not figure out a real fix for this. 

Alas, presentation issues are not a forte of mine. I generally just throw text up the page, with only minimal formatting (see, for instance, my home page). So I'm not sure I can help much. Your &nbsp hack seems like the best fix - and I don't see any other way around it (until/unless we get strings).

How about we kill two birds and say that optional tabs have to have a one-word name? I wouldn't want that header to get too wide, anyway, otherwise you have to scroll sideways to see all the tabs.

Noel

[Larry Sanger]

Personally, I think we should get rid of three fields: underlinked; basic cleanup done; and checklist last edited.  So you have the EiC's permission to do any of those (please).

I also think we should add ONE more category field, or (better?) create a special y/n field for Topic Informant articles.

Also, Chris...I think the # help links should be converted to a small [?] link (with the brackets).  This will make it clearer to more people that they can learn about that subpage type at that link.

I also am somewhat partial to the general idea of creating a new type of metadata: importance/centrality of topic.  We need to decide how fine-grained to make the categories--not too fine-grained.  It will be difficult, but I think it could be really useful.

Then there were other ideas for other metadata...well, I'm just rambling here, really, focused on many other things I'm afraid.

[J. Noel Chiappa]

I also think we should add ONE more category field

There's been some discussion of that already. Shouldn't be too hard.

Then there were other ideas for other metadata...

Well, the sooner we decide on changes, the better it will be, probably. Right now there are a lot of slightly obsolete metadata pages out there (i.e. ones with some of the newer fields missing), and although it's relatively easy for people to add these manuall if they want to set them, it would be better if we could get them into the blank initial metadata.


Oh, what about the per-article subpage types (i.e. ones that are not in the system-wide list of 20 or so)?

Noel

[Chris Day]

why I needed the url compatibility. It is so i can have preloaded pages for the Unused subpages. See http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Unused_subpage_list.  I'll try the anchor as see how that works.

That should fix it.

But that issue shouldn't affect the optional tabs, right?

Yes it did fix it. And you're right, it does not affect the article specific tabs, only the more generic ones that are in unused subpages.

How about we kill two birds and say that optional tabs have to have a one-word name? I wouldn't want that header to get too wide, anyway, otherwise you have to scroll sideways to see all the tabs.

There are two good reasons for this. Keeps the name short (not much space up there) and then I only need one designated tab rather than tab1A and tab1C. If anyone needs one of these article specific tabs badly enough this should be a trivial limitation them.

Also, Chris...I think the # help links should be converted to a small [?] link (with the brackets).  This will make it clearer to more people that they can learn about that subpage type at that link.

I was even thinking of axing it all together.  But let's try the ? and see how it looks for a while.

Then there were other ideas for other metadata...

Well, the sooner we decide on changes, the better it will be, probably.

I agree that we have a window of opportunity here to make the subpages/checklist/metdata more useful and user friendly. The sooner the better.

[Larry Sanger]

Chris--gah!--where are you talking about having "sub-categories"?  This is a new one on me, and has all sorts of ramifications that need very careful thought.

[Chris Day]

Chris--gah!--where are you talking about having "sub-categories"?  This is a new one on me, and has all sorts of ramifications that need very careful thought.

You mean the sub-workgroups? I'm sure there are ramifications but getting some idea of how it might work is probably best done with a working example. The only example is chemical engineering.

See this thread http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1646.0.html

[Larry Sanger]

I saw another on "Biophysics," which is why I sort of freaked out a little there  .  But I then saw the discussion of sub-workgroups on another board and I'll comment there (probably tomorrow).