User talk:Daniel Mietchen/Archive 3

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Thanks

Will do.Gareth Leng 17:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: your note on my talk page

I do not think that it is necessary for me to become an editor as far as approval of the NMR spectroscopy article is concerned, as it is clear that there are three well qualified editors - D.E.Volk, Paul Wormer and yourself. Also, we are in the middle of our semester now; our vacation starts in May and hopefully this article will be approved by then - at that time (in May) I can apply to be an editor. 

 Thanks for the invitation.  Sekhar Talluri 17:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note my post at Talk:AN- about final approval tomorrow

Daniel, just notifying you about my post at Talk:AN- regarding final approval tomorrow of AN/. Regards, Milton Beychok 05:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Any plans for these?

I can't tell if these are lost or whether they are going to be part of articles? No big deal but just not sure what to do with them in their orphaned state.

Chris Day 06:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out to me - how can I keep track of such lost pages via a single category or special page? I normally create a stub for the articles on which I collect references here but sometime the server is too slow to really go through the whole page creation process. So these ones are back on my list now, and I will create those articles during the next week or so. --Daniel Mietchen 09:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This category should have most of them (Category:Orphan subpage). Note though that many listed in there will be "fossil" pages, ones that had the template but do not any longer. This is one of the problems with adding categories with the subpages template. While the categories on each page are always current the presence of an article on a category page depends on a recent edit; the categories don't register correctly unless there is an edit to the page. Thus, the list of articles in any category can become outdated quite fast if pages remain unedited. It's a real pain and makes categories somewhat problematic for maintenance tasks. Chris Day 16:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note my posting on Talk:Concentration (chemistry)

Daniel, I would very much appreciate a response to my posting at Talk:Concentration (chemistry). Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Kugelfunktionen

Daniel, I know that WP.de calls these functions Kugelflächenfunktionen, but I have here Courant-Hilbert, Methoden der mathematischen Physik, Band I (Heidelberger Taschenbücher 1968). On p. 270 we find the Schwingungsgleichung with solution Ansatz u(r)Y(θ, φ). Then a few lines down: nur für die Werte k = n(n+1) genügt werden kann, und zwar durch die Kugelfunktionen Yn(θ, φ). The term Kugelflächenfunktion appears once (p. 274) in Courant-Hilbert (and Kugelfunktion very often), and this flächenfunktion is on a beliebiges Gebiet auf der Kugeloberfläche (not on the whole surface). In addition, I own a German translation of Edmonds: Drehimpulse in der Quantenmechanik (Hochschultaschenbücher 1964) where on p. 31: Die Ylm sind somit die Kugelfunktionen. --Paul Wormer 08:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I had not checked WP on this one but I know both terms are in use, even though most references I read on them were in Engels. In a German phrase, one could indicate the existence of the two terms by writing "Kugel(flächen)funktionen" but this would probably be irritating here. So I changed it into the one that I think is more specific (there are other, though rarer, uses of "Kugelfunktion") and more frequently used in this context. If you're not satisfied by that, I would suggest to use the term employed in the German translation of Landau/Lifshitz (don't have it at hand but could drop in to a library somewhen during the next few days). --Daniel Mietchen 17:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Why would a translation of Landau-Lifschitz be better than the German of two famous Göttinger mathematicians, Courant and Hilbert? Their book was the Bible for all early quantum mechaniciens, including Landau no doubt. The book has an enormous prestige, for a large part due to Hilbert's prestige of course. Anyway, I would be surprised if the translator of Landau-Lifschitz would not use Kugelfunktion. In any case the translator of Edmonds uses it.
I looked at yet another German book (H. Teichmann, Vektor und Tensorrechnung) and Teichmann uses Kugelfunktion for what I would call irregular solid harmonic (power rL+1 in the denominator) and indeed Kugelflächefunktion for spherical harmonics.--Paul Wormer 18:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not feel competent to judge whether any of the two books is "better", since I only know one of them. Anyway, I'm in the library right now. Kugelfunktionen is used in Landau/Lifschitz (Band 3, Quantenmechanik) and five of the six other quantum mechanics text books available here (the exception being the translation of Cohen-Tannoudji/Diu/Laloë). Math books (checked about a dozen) usually give both terms, redirecting Kugelflächenfunktionen to Kugelfunktionen. The latter term seems to be used in several contexts, e.g. Kugelflächenfunktionen vs. räumliche Kugelfunktionen. However, such fine distinctions are probably not relevant to our article in question, and so I have changed it back to Kugelfunktionen. Thanks for checking! Groetjes --Daniel Mietchen 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk Maxwell

Daniel, Would you be willing to co-nominate for approval James Clerk Maxwell? We're in a pickle over there. I've nominated the article for approval, but we need a physicist to check-off on the physics section of the article. --Russell D. Jones 00:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Will go through it before Feb 29. --Daniel Mietchen 11:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation

Daniel, Just a heads up. I wanted to simplify the R template so i removed the disambiguation status functionality. It now has its own template at {{RD}}. I made the required changes at CZ:List of words with multiple uses but you maybe using it somewhere else? Chris Day 17:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for continuing to work on that and to "drive" the proposal. I don't see problems with this split, and I haven't used the R template for disambiguations elsewhere. --Daniel Mietchen 17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

example microbe

This page is just a temporary place holder for the template for my eduzendium class. I will delete it later. Cheers JD --John J. Dennehy 15:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand that but thought it would be better to put as much redundant information (namely the EZ template) into this copy-and-paste source as possible. Besides, if the article is in the CZ namespace, it can serve as a template for future classes without hindering anything in main space. --Daniel Mietchen 15:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, how do you edit {{CZ:Biol_201:_General_Microbiology/EZnotice}} ?John J. Dennehy 14:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
via CZ:Biol_201:_General_Microbiology/EZnotice. --Daniel Mietchen 14:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

hyperlink from redirect info

Nothing springs to mind but let me think some more. Is the reason for the redirect to have a more user friendly description, rather than the unambiguous DOI, so it is easier to identify the references in edit mode? Chris Day 15:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, edit mode really requires something human-readable, and most DOIs do not meet this criterion. --Daniel Mietchen 15:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Chris Day 15:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Good news, I added it to the citation template directly. Let me know if you want more details. Unfortunately, with this solution, the edit link has to be at the end of the reference itself rather than the end of the comment. Chris Day 16:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

level vs statusbar

Here is the correct edit. Let me know what you think. Might need more tweaking. Chris Day 15:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes, image map would be a good idea. Chris Day 15:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I was aware of this way to do it but it did not include the
{{#ifeq: 0 | {{{{{1|}}}/Metadata|info=status}}|Approved Article|}}{{#ifeq: 1 | {{{{{1|}}}/Metadata|info=status}}|Developed Article|}}{{#ifeq: 2 | {{{{{1|}}}/Metadata|info=status}}|Developing Article|}}{{#ifeq: 3 | {{{{{1|}}}/Metadata|info=status}}|Stub|}}{{#ifeq: 4 | {{{{{1|}}}/Metadata|info=status}}|External Article|}
part used to explain the images. I do not know how to resize images anisotropically but think it would be appropriate (if it exists) here. I might give imagemap a try . --Daniel Mietchen 16:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, Now I understand what you were up to, i didn't notice the mouseable text (not sure what the official name is). I seem to remember that not working for me before. If you want to play around a bit you can try the test article with {{Subpage style test}}. That way it will not be a drain on the server. Chris Day 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

As to the code it should be the following. {{#ifeq: 0 |{{{status}}}|Approved Article|}}{{#ifeq: 1 |{{{status|}}}|Developed Article|}}{{#ifeq: 2 | {{{status|}}}|Developing Article|}}{{#ifeq: 3 | {{{status|}}}|Stub|}}{{#ifeq: 4 | {{{status|}}}|External Article|} All the parameters for the subpage style template are set by the previous template in the series. For example, see {{Parameters1}}. Chris Day 16:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Anisotropic image scaling may still have to be helpful, though, at least for non-zero status. --Daniel Mietchen 17:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
What is the relation between an edit to a page (or heavily used template) and server load or lag? --Daniel Mietchen 18:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Just read http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Job_queue and think it would be better to protect {{subpages}} and the associated templates. --Daniel Mietchen 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there not a cascading protection already? Chris Day 19:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I just checked again and it is protected with cascading protection. In theory you should only be able to edit {{subpage style}} with sysop rights. Maybe you have them without knowing? Chris Day 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I have them - can't delete pages, for instance, nor create accounts. May be I'm an editor in the "subpages" group ;-) --Daniel Mietchen 09:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

articles for approval

Could you have a look at Vapor pressure and Specific heat ratio and see whether you'd be ready to nominate them for approval? Milt recently posted them at CZ:Ready for approval and I believe he is the main CZ author, though some material is from Wikipedia. Thhanks, Joe Quick 15:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I won't have time for that during the next weeks. --Daniel Mietchen 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, no problem. I also asked a couple of other people. --Joe Quick 22:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Reply to your question

Mr. Mietchen, here are some of the articles I have written.

About references for temperature dependence of specific heat ratio

Daniel, I am about 95% sure that these two references describe what I remember as correlations for predicting the effect of temperature on specific heat ratios:

The first one is by Wayne Edmister and utilizes reduced temperatures and reduced pressures. The second one elaborates on Edmister's method and also includes a worked example. I think I will wait until Specific heat ratio is approved tomorrow and then add these into the Related Links subpage as you suggested. Regards, Milton Beychok 00:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I found Miller's a better fit and put it in directly, leaving Paul a note. --Daniel Mietchen 09:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

{ { wikify } }

One thing i note with using that link in google scholar for a book is that it did not give the ISBN numbers. When Peter added his ref manually he had the hardback and softback numbers there. Another pain is that the title hyperlink does not go directly to the book. It should. I'll have a look and see how it works in wikipedia. I suspect they have made some modifications to the citation template. Chris Day 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see you are already on top of this problem. I guess this works better for journals than books. Chris Day 15:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Wanted - chemical elements

Hi Daniel, I'm not sure if you saw {{Basic elemental info‎}} or {{Basic elemental def}}, but I suppose in trying to jumpstart the elements articles with them, I may have been undermining the "Most Wanted" list. They have allowed me to start articles for many elements, but only the very basic info about each element is included. The truth is I'm not sure how much more information we might even _want_ to include for some elements (perhaps a brief history?), but I suspect that Tin or Iodine for example, might deserve a little more. I hope this helps...--David Yamakuchi 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more on "Wanted" pages: "using it as a guideline on which article to start next would probably be a good idea", but also in terms of the basic templates being too simple and "an encyclopedic entry would certainly have to cover more than these basic facts."

I'm not sure I agree however that: "years are much worse in this context." The reason that the elements all jumped to the top of the "Wanted" list was pretty much solely due to the addition of a link to each and every element _from_ each and every template added. I don't think the years were linked to in quite the same way. It's like linking to every individual year in a century from each and every article for a year in that century. It seemed like a good idea tho to have a Periodic Table with the element highlighted on each elements page...kind of part of the "corporate design" you mention.

In terms of the {{Basic elemental info‎}} we can remove them and {{speedydelete}} the articles if you like...that would get them back on the wanted list, but right now there is at least a minimum set of scientific data for each. Also, by adding the properties of the elements thusly, we are now able to do some basic graphic processing on the elemental properties through the wiki, and so we have some additional options in terms of the wiki handling of the information like: {{PTofE}}, and {{Periodic_Table_of_Properties}}. I would be less inclined to want to speedy that stuff...--David Yamakuchi 02:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Why Johnny Can't Read

Hi, Daniel -- I don't understand why you put the author of the book into the title of the article -- that's surely not common practice. I don't think there were two books by the same name so that they had to be differentiated.... At the very most, if there were, say, a popular movie, or even a band, by the same name, the usual thing to do would be to call the article "Why Johnny Can't Read (book)". Or so I believe.... Hayford Peirce 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Larry did that - I just corrected a typo. Feel free to move to "(book)". --Daniel Mietchen 17:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Bizarre, bizarre. Can't understand what he was thinking about. I'll correct it. Hayford Peirce 17:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Year articles

Hi Daniel, what's the consensus on year articles? Are we going to to do something similar to what wikipedia does and have articles on every year or does citizendium have something else in mind? I note someone has made a start on 2007 but don't know whether it was official. Meg Ireland 02:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that there have been very contradictory pronouncements about this over the years. At one point I'm pretty sure that Larry was strongly in favor of them, but ONLY for significant events, and for things that all tied together. After that, the discussion sorta petered out. Not enough people here, not enough time. I myself am sorta against them, but not very strongly. I can see the justifications for them. What I *hate* though, are all the WP links to July 3, 1942 etc. etc. scattered throughout their articles. Hayford Peirce 03:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I've found a relative dicussion on the forum at [1] It seems most people aren't opposed to the idea (including Larry), it's the way the dates are linked and what's notable for inclusion that some people have misgivings over. Meg Ireland 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes. There have been *other* Forum discussions as well -- I know that I have protested a couple of times about the ubiquity of the dates in the worst of the WP articles. Larry has always been more in favor of them than I have. But, as I said above, I have no great objection as long as they're used with intelligent discretion. Hayford Peirce 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've found some other forum articles [2][3]. I think I'll leave it for now until we can get better consensus on the issue and a policy formulated. Meg Ireland 03:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Check the Recent Changes for the article I've been working on and take it to heart: It Won't Get You Anywhere, hehe.... Hayford Peirce 04:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
My primary concern with them is that they clutter Special:WantedPages, which I think may be a very useful tool if optimized. Any ideas on that would be appreciated. --Daniel Mietchen 22:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Approval process for Animal

Mr. Mietchen, I've finished up the draft for Animal, and I was wondering if you could read it over and see if you could initiate the approval process for it. I'm pretty proud of it, and I'd love to see it garner approved status. Sincerely, Joshua Choi 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Orchid

I was glad to hear that you've been looking over the orchid article with approval in mind! --Joe Quick 04:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: CZ:Schema_of_Magnetic_Resonance-related_articles

Can you take a look at this http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Instrumentation ? Sekhar Talluri 20:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Lantuit

I've just accepted him as an Author. He didn't want to join as an Editor also? Hayford Peirce 15:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he was not aware of the difference. --Daniel Mietchen 15:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably. You might tell him. And, if he would like to be an editor, bug Larry and/or the other people about it. I've tried before, and for some reason the wiki won't let me, to change an application from "author" to "author and editor", but this time I didn't even try. It only delayed things in the past.... Hayford Peirce 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Roh

Thanks for your edit. I'll need to rearrange it a little. Is 'Roh' normally pronounced as it is spelt then? I also recently put in 'Daewoo', another example of baffling Korean-to-Roman. Ro Thorpe 18:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (no relation)

"노" is normally pronounced (and transcribed) "no" but in rare cases, especially names, transcribed as "Roh" (with or without diacritics, the "h" is not pronounced). There are several sources of potential confusion: "너" is also transcribed "no" (or "neo") and pronounced as the "no" in "not" (British pronunciation), while "로" could be transcribed as Ro (or Lo), and and "러" as Ro/ Reo (or Lo/Leo). I added a Hangul version of Dâeŵoo. --Daniel Mietchen 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to watch this page. Anyway, I think it's OK the way I've rewritten it now... Ro Thorpe 20:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

About weekly changing of Article of the Week and New Draft of the Week

Daniel, this is a copy of what I just posted on the forums:

WOW! I really like what you have done, Daniel. It not only makes the weekly change simpler, it also lets people know more about the nominees before they vote.
Would you follow up with Hayford about the few that need his fixing to make them work in your system?
If you want to take over the weekly chore of changing the winners and displaying the new winners on the home page, please feel free to do so. Otherwise, I'll let you know next week if I run into any problems.
Once more, great work!!
Milt

Milton Beychok 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I do not want to commit to do it regularly but I thought I could help make it simpler. --Daniel Mietchen 05:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Daniel, see my response here to your request on my talk page. Milton Beychok 05:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Daniel, whenever you create a new template, please add it to the list at CZ:Templates.
I like what you have done, by the way, but as mentioned on the forums I would like to rename the templates to {{AOTW Candidate}} and {{AOTW Winner}} or even {{AOTW}} - any objections?
Caesar Schinas 06:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continued at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.msg21413.html#msg21413. --Daniel Mietchen 06:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I can see you are practicing on Air preheater

Daniel, I can see that you are practicing and, in case you haven't already noticed, you have transcluded quite a bit too much for display on the CZ home page. It would create a large empty, white space in the adjacent left hand column of the home page. And now I'm off to bed. Milton Beychok 07:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Mietchen/Archive_3&oldid=949584"