Talk:Periodic table of elements: Difference between revisions
imported>Robert Tito |
imported>Larry Sanger No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Rob, I've removed the approval template that you added to the article. Please see [[CZ:Approval Process|Approval Process]]. A single individual, who has worked on an article (as you have this one), should avoid nominating an article for approval unless there are two other ''Chemistry'' editors who are on hand and who have declared their willingness to approve the article as well. Even if there are other editors at work on the article, even if in allied fields such as biology, you still need two more chemistry editors. Sorry, but that's the rule that we decided on back in December. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | Rob, I've removed the approval template that you added to the article. Please see [[CZ:Approval Process|Approval Process]]. A single individual, who has worked on an article (as you have this one), should avoid nominating an article for approval unless there are two other ''Chemistry'' editors who are on hand and who have declared their willingness to approve the article as well. Even if there are other editors at work on the article, even if in allied fields such as biology, you still need two more chemistry editors. Sorry, but that's the rule that we decided on back in December. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:21, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
The stamp (toapprove) has been here for over 4 weeks, NO chemistry editor in that period even was online, or have been for even some longer period. We can however remain sitting like a lame duck and do nothing. Waiting for editors to come aboard and be active. This is what I will do from now on. Thank you for pointing me to that. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 14:33, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | The stamp (toapprove) has been here for over 4 weeks, NO chemistry editor in that period even was online, or have been for even some longer period. We can however remain sitting like a lame duck and do nothing. Waiting for editors to come aboard and be active. This is what I will do from now on. Thank you for pointing me to that. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 14:33, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Unfortunately, that's what we have to do! But it is a problem that can be corrected. I think it will be corrected, in fact, either after we grow some more, or when we start up our new workgroup announcement lists--so, you'll be able to reach all the chemistry editors who agree to receive occasional messages. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:56, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
Also, it would be great if the image of the Periodic Table were large enough to read. You need to make two clicks [http://en.citizendium.org/images/f/f5/Periodictable.jpg] in order to read this one. The Wikipedia article does a good job on this score. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Methods_for_displaying_the_periodic_table] --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | Also, it would be great if the image of the Periodic Table were large enough to read. You need to make two clicks [http://en.citizendium.org/images/f/f5/Periodictable.jpg] in order to read this one. The Wikipedia article does a good job on this score. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table#Methods_for_displaying_the_periodic_table] --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
The information in that table is just a fraction of the information in the used table. Any other example on WP also uses the two clicks. I could have placed a very simple table here, I wanted it to have relevant data. And in ONE jpg no links to other pages as these distract from the info. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 14:33, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | The information in that table is just a fraction of the information in the used table. Any other example on WP also uses the two clicks. I could have placed a very simple table here, I wanted it to have relevant data. And in ONE jpg no links to other pages as these distract from the info. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | <span style="background:black"> <font color="red"><b>[[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]</b></font> </span> 14:33, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Well, it's just my opinion and I won't insist on it strongly, but it is frustrating for me to see ''that'' there is a lot more information ''on that particular table,'' and yet not be able to see it without clicking through. A simpler table, that one can use to click through to the individual elements, would be better, IMO. However, this is your decision, Chemistry Editor. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 14:56, 23 March 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 14:56, 23 March 2007
Discussion Area
Rob, I've removed the approval template that you added to the article. Please see Approval Process. A single individual, who has worked on an article (as you have this one), should avoid nominating an article for approval unless there are two other Chemistry editors who are on hand and who have declared their willingness to approve the article as well. Even if there are other editors at work on the article, even if in allied fields such as biology, you still need two more chemistry editors. Sorry, but that's the rule that we decided on back in December. --Larry Sanger 12:21, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
The stamp (toapprove) has been here for over 4 weeks, NO chemistry editor in that period even was online, or have been for even some longer period. We can however remain sitting like a lame duck and do nothing. Waiting for editors to come aboard and be active. This is what I will do from now on. Thank you for pointing me to that. Robert Tito | Talk 14:33, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Unfortunately, that's what we have to do! But it is a problem that can be corrected. I think it will be corrected, in fact, either after we grow some more, or when we start up our new workgroup announcement lists--so, you'll be able to reach all the chemistry editors who agree to receive occasional messages. --Larry Sanger 14:56, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
Also, it would be great if the image of the Periodic Table were large enough to read. You need to make two clicks [1] in order to read this one. The Wikipedia article does a good job on this score. See [2] --Larry Sanger 12:24, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
![[1]](http://en.citizendium.org/images/f/f5/Periodictable.jpg){kind=link}
The information in that table is just a fraction of the information in the used table. Any other example on WP also uses the two clicks. I could have placed a very simple table here, I wanted it to have relevant data. And in ONE jpg no links to other pages as these distract from the info. Robert Tito | Talk 14:33, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Well, it's just my opinion and I won't insist on it strongly, but it is frustrating for me to see that there is a lot more information on that particular table, and yet not be able to see it without clicking through. A simpler table, that one can use to click through to the individual elements, would be better, IMO. However, this is your decision, Chemistry Editor. --Larry Sanger 14:56, 23 March 2007 (CDT)