Recent Posts

Creating a stub (without metadata and talk) would be:

Here's one advantage: when creating a Related Articles page, you can free-associate ideas for topics. Essentially without leaving the Related Articles page, you can go to a redlink you've created, click the definition and fill it in,

* copy the definition

refresh or reload, then click on the article title and create the lemma mainpage

* the stub main page by inserting the definition (instead of {{subpages}})

Much faster when doing many topics.

Is this really much slower?

Yes, especially if one is doing dozens of related articles, such as the list of fellows or board members of an organization.  I will often pull a membership list from a webpage, format it into R-templates using a text editor, and fill it in. This is much faster for long lists.

It just occurred to me that the problem that started the thread is more complicated
(and even more surprising for an unprepared author) than to try to expand an existing lemma article
(where he may not even be aware that there are no metadata):

It was not caused by a lemma article, but by a definition only article.

Nick created a new page, entered {{subpages}} and expected to start the "create cluster" sequence,
but saw an involuntarily created lemma article instead.

Creating a stub (without metadata and talk) would be:

Here's one advantage: when creating a Related Articles page, you can free-associate ideas for topics. Essentially without leaving the Related Articles page, you can go to a redlink you've created, click the definition and fill it in,

* copy the definition

refresh or reload, then click on the article title and create the lemma mainpage

* the stub main page by inserting the definition (instead of {{subpages}})

Much faster when doing many topics.

Is this really much slower?

[against]

I believe there should be a minimum blue link, and it's easier to set up lemmas.

A red link is the biggest clue that help is needed.  A lemma article makes it look like you're finished.

One may argue when a red and when a blue link is better.
But I still do not see, why a lemma article is the better way to provide a blue link.
(I am not against them -- but I would like to understand their advantage.)

* For a lemma article one has to write the definition and create the main page.
* For a stub one has to write the definition and copy it to the main page.
  (One may ignore the request to create Metadata and Talk page.)

Is this really more work?
A plus for the stub: One may have a short definition and a longer one on the main page (with only minor additional effort).

Here's one advantage: when creating a Related Articles page, you can free-associate ideas for topics. Essentially without leaving the Related Articles page, you can go to a redlink you've created, click the definition and fill it in, refresh or reload, then click on the article title and create the lemma mainpage. Much faster when doing many topics.

[against]

I believe there should be a minimum blue link, and it's easier to set up lemmas.

A red link is the biggest clue that help is needed.  A lemma article makes it look like you're finished.

One may argue when a red and when a blue link is better.
But I still do not see, why a lemma article is the better way to provide a blue link.
(I am not against them -- but I would like to understand their advantage.)

* For a lemma article one has to write the definition and create the main page.
* For a stub one has to write the definition and copy it to the main page.
  (One may ignore the request to create Metadata and Talk page.)

Is this really more work?
A plus for the stub: One may have a short definition and a longer one on the main page (with only minor additional effort).

There's always the question of who there is to stimulate. Now, in what is not the ideal use of lemmas, and really should be stubs or more, I have been trying to get at least minimum coverage of the 100 U.S. Senators and 435 Representatives. I believe there should be a minimum blue link, and it's easier to set up lemmas. Sadly, I haven't seen anyone filling in behind me.

Things like this, incidentally, could well be a undergraduate or even high school Eduzendium project, with a basic skeleton to fill in.

People will help where they see that they can help.  A red link is the biggest clue that help is needed.  A lemma article makes it look like you're finished.  A lemma article with a template that asks for help might be an alternative, but it's not as inviting as a red link.

No. It might be no more than a definition to which there needs to be links.

We still need to make it VERY easy for anyone (including someone who is brand new) to be able to edit that namespace.  When it's just a transcluded definition, it gets really confusing.  Right now, when someone tries to edit, a commented out statement says "This ...  is transcluded.."  Perhaps we could add something there that also tells them how to revert the article to a real article.

But why - if only the definition is needed - create a main page?
Wouldn't it be better to see - from the red link - that there is no article accompanying it?

(Though I understand the mechanics I have to confess that I do not understand the advantage of a lemma article over a stub to which the definition has been copied. (Less storage, perhaps?)
A stub would belong to a workgroup. And if there is a need to distinguish between a stub (which should be extended) and a short article which (probably) should stay short, a separate status could be created. This status would be useful for other "naturally" stub-like pages. too.

Yes, we want the red links, it stimulates people to fill in the red linked articles.

There's always the question of who there is to stimulate. Now, in what is not the ideal use of lemmas, and really should be stubs or more, I have been trying to get at least minimum coverage of the 100 U.S. Senators and 435 Representatives. I believe there should be a minimum blue link, and it's easier to set up lemmas. Sadly, I haven't seen anyone filling in behind me.

Things like this, incidentally, could well be a undergraduate or even high school Eduzendium project, with a basic skeleton to fill in.

I think the process should be that everyone is reviewed by a constable and accepted if eligible as an author and then the constable can forward editor requests to the Editorial Personnel who can then take their time reviewing qualifications (and might even consider wiki activity as a criteria?)  Either way, we would need to alter the Confirm Accounts pages to allow constables to approve an account AND THEN FORWARD THE EDITOR REQUESTS (currently the application is removed from the queue once we create an author account and we have no further access to it).

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

We could also think of modifying the RequestAccount page such that only requests for authorship are possible. Then we could include in the welcome message a link to a page which provides instructions on application for editorship.

We are into "interim guidance" anyway, but this, in a way, is an argument for getting a bit of author experience before editing.  I'm just now trying to decide what to do about some articles by an instant editor, which have bias and the author of which will not respond to comments by email or talk page..

We still need to be able to allow "instant editors", but some author experience can only be a good thing. 

Just edit the article as you would any other - it's a wiki.

I think the process should be that everyone is reviewed by a constable and accepted if eligible as an author and then the constable can forward editor requests to the Editorial Personnel who can then take their time reviewing qualifications (and might even consider wiki activity as a criteria?)  Either way, we would need to alter the Confirm Accounts pages to allow constables to approve an account AND THEN FORWARD THE EDITOR REQUESTS (currently the application is removed from the queue once we create an author account and we have no further access to it).

Yes, that makes perfect sense.

We could also think of modifying the RequestAccount page such that only requests for authorship are possible. Then we could include in the welcome message a link to a page which provides instructions on application for editorship.

We are into "interim guidance" anyway, but this, in a way, is an argument for getting a bit of author experience before editing.  I'm just now trying to decide what to do about some articles by an instant editor, which have bias and the author of which will not respond to comments by email or talk page..

On the Charter discussion page for the charterists, I read:

I think authors though should be given the option for applying to have an article deleted provided they are the sole editor. Once someone else contributes, it's no longer possible to delete. The decision to delete an article should be up to the editorial council for consideration. Meg Ireland 05:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

To me that flies in the face of everything that Citizendium is supposed to be, a clear declaration of "ownership" of an article, although, admittedly, only in certain cases.  I recall a couple of cases from when I first joined that a Contributor wanted to completely withdraw one or more articles that he/she had written because he/she was withdrawing (angrily, almost certainly) from the project.  Larry very *forcefully* refused to do so.  And, if the article in question had already been deleted by the Contributor, restored it.

If the charterists want to change this, then they have the perfect right to do so, but they will, in my opinion, be making a pretty major change to the project.

It will not have my support: I agree with Hayford.

I agree with both of you.

Same here.