User talk:Dalton Holland Baptista

Welcome!

Welcome, new editor! We're very glad you've joined us. Here are pointers for a quick start. Also, when you get a chance, please read The Editor Role. You can look at Getting Started for other helpful introductory pages. It is essential for you as an editor to join the Citizendium-Editors (broadcast) mailing list in order to stay abreast of editor-related issues, as well as the mailing list(s) that concern your particular interests. It is also important, for project-wide matters, to join the Citizendium-L (broadcast) mailing list. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forums is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any constable for help, too. Me, for instance! Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and thank you! We appreciate your willingness to share your expertise, and we hope to see your edits on Recent changes soon. Larry Sanger 15:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dalton (or Holland?), don't worry about the specifics of CZ. You can learn as you go. A good starting point for you would be to bring articles from wikipedia over here that you think are high quality. Then you can get the feel of the place here by reformating the articles. Let me know if you have any questions. Chris Day 18:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, this place is much more quiet than wikipedia and we are very embryonic. On the other hand this has the advantage that we can really make major changes in how things are presented. The tree of life project here had a little lease of life but the original contributors have drifted off, I suspect due to the lack of a critical mass. in short, if you have some unique ideas on how to present botany articles feel free to experiment, you are not obligated to follow the wikipedia model. If you have a look in the forums you will fin there were a few discussion with respect to naming conventions. I think those will be of interest to you. I'll try and track down some specific links for you. Chris Day 18:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Signatures

Just a heads up, you can't customise them here the same way as at wikipedia. So don't pull your hair out trying to find out how to do it. Chris Day 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

experiment

I have been experimenting with masterlists on the Leptotes/Related Articles related articles page, see Leptotes bicolor/Related Articles/Masterlist and Leptotes/Related Articles/Masterlist. One difference between wikipedia and citizendium is that we do not use categories. Instead we try and use the Related Articles subpages to give a navigational web. However, when large lists are repeated on multiple pages it makes more sense to transclude them from a masterlist location.

We use the {{R}} template on the Related Articles subpages too; it transcludes a universal definition and provides a link to edit that defintion ([e]) as well as a link to the Related Articles subpage associated with that term ([r]). By clicking through using the [r] links you can envisage how one can wander up, down and across the information within the hierarchy. You can see how this works by clicking the [r] link after Leptotes bicolor on the Leptotes/Related Articles subpages. It's a little complicated and any comments from a new comer on how to improve the user friendliness is very welcome. Chris Day 04:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

Thanks for the note, a lot to digest. I like the idea of visual navigation too. Did you note I started a gallery at Leptotes/Gallery? i think this subpage option is better than the wikipedia alternatives since more pictures can be added than is reasonable on a wikipedia article. With regard to visual navigation, another thing I have been experimenting with is using the imagemap feature. You can see some experiments at:

Template:CEC - mouse over the content, although it is not complete, just a proof of concept.

Template:Biology open house

My thinking was that pictures of metabolic pathways could be clickable, but that could work for phylogenies, concept maps or photomontages too. With respect to navigation tools and usability you can see one discussion at CZ_Talk:Usability. It is a little chaotic but I think that might be quite represent our thoughts at present. Any input you have will be great, obviously you have thought about this and developed tools yourself. Chris Day 17:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

With regard to Archaea/Taxonomy‎, you'll note that using that subpage format does not work for you. We would call that an experimental subpage as it is not hardwired into the subpages template. One way around this is to add Taxonomy to the tab1 field in the metadata. Then you will find it works fine. Another option is to go with Archaea/Catalogs/Taxonomy‎. For more information of this see the proposal at CZ:Proposals/Should we allow article specific subpages?. Chris Day 04:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I was trying to figure it out. Well, someone needs to erase it now. Dalton Holland Baptista 04:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't want it? Seems like that might be a worthwhile experiment? See this edit for how to make something like that functional. Chris Day 04:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh I do want it, just thought it might be a different url, but then it is perfect now. BTW I was looking fot the tab one field, didn't realize I had to add it, good that you've done it. Well, Paulo went to bed now, so tomorrow he will merge all info from both articles and we will see how it works. Dalton Holland Baptista 04:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This was an older article and when the metadata was created it did not have sub fields or tab fields. Both these concepts are relatively new. Any metadata page created recently will have those fields. Chris Day 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Chris, I'm heading to bed too, just wanted to say I'm enjoying very much the experience with CZ. It's so much better than writing on WP. I'm sure as I learn all the possibilities will like even more. Few days ago I found another good editor from PT-WP who registered on CZ long ago Rafael Azevedo I'll ask him why he stopped writing here. He is a pretty good author of classical music and history articles. Maybe he will be back. See you tomorrow. Dalton Holland Baptista 05:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Orchids

Hi Dalton!

Chris Day pointed out your excellent work at orchid, so I'm saying hello.

I wonder if it would be possible for you to edit out Wikipedia stuff so that this is a CZ original? If, as I suspect, you added the WP notice for your own original work at Wikipedia, then it takes a WP Author notice, not a WP one. Make sense?

Aleta Curry 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hey!

Hehe... I'm always following the genius! It's time to attempt new challenges (pena que em inglês, ainda!). Regards! Vinicius Siqueira 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Leptotes was selected as the CZ:New Draft of the Week and is featured on the main page! --Todd Coles 03:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Hi Dalton, I removed the Botany category with Chris' name on it from your user page, first because it shouldn't have Chris' name on it, and second, only one of these people can add an editor category to a user page.. if you want one, please feel free to contact them and they can follow up from there. Thanks, D. Matt Innis 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it okay to add your own name to a workgroup editor category? Well that is certainly a good question! As a constable, I just look out for people adding themselves as editors to workgroups (you can imagine why), but I haven't been presented with this particular scenerio - an editor placing himself in a subworkgroup (if that is what we are talking about). This is probably something that needs at least some discussion, particularly if we want constables to be watching for these things. I'll add the question to the thread on subworkgroups on the forums. D. Matt Innis 19:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. I had not really thought about this in much detail. When we initially started discussing the role of editors and authors in a subgroup we thought that the designation was more to indicate "which members happen to be editor in a workgroup". The function of an editor in a subgroup does not exist. So in theory, anyone that is already an editor can add a subgroup category as an editor too; this should not need constables. I agree that placing editor category's for workgroups is a totally different matter. Does that make sense Matt? Is there a better way to organise this, i can see how this could get very confusing and might give the wrong impression that people can add workgroup editor categories too. Chris Day 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One solution is to just have a member category rather than an author and editor category. Chris Day 20:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It does make sense, Chris. It really just means that constables need to be a little more careful when looking for those adding an editor category. In reality, no-one should be adding themselves as an editor to a subgroup unless they have an editor tag already so it's just a matter of us looking a little closer. That is, of course, if we are not talking about "specialist" editors having ONLY subworkgroup powers and approval rights. If specialists are still going to be editors in the parent workgroup, it shouldn't be hard to monitor. D. Matt Innis 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This was discussed somewhere, and i think that the consensus was that even specialist editors should be with the workgroups. Subgroups become too complicated with editorial rights outside of workgroups. However, I could see that happening in the future. Chris Day 20:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I should have known you had thought all of this through already. I'll look forward to your comment on the forum and go from there. D. Matt Innis 20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know I just arrived and I know nothing, and may be saying silly things, but anyway I guess having subgroup editors (at least listed as such) should work better regarding the approval of articles because they will be closer and more familiar with the subject than general editors from parent workgroup but not in the subgroup. Actually I don't know how this might work as the editors show themselves to evaluate the articles, but I'd say editors within the same subgroup would possibly be more acurate than less related ones. I think as CZ grows more and more specialization will be needed. Dalton Holland Baptista 20:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion is just as important as any other! Make sure it is known where it counts... keep up with each of these discussions and I am sure we will end up with the best solution. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)