CZ Talk:Workgroups

Alphabetical

Agriculture

Anthropology

Archaeology

Architecture

Astronomy

Biology

Business

Classics

Chemistry

Computers

Earth Sciences

Economics

Education

Energy

Engineering

Games and Hobbies

Geography

Health Sciences

History

Journalism

Law

Library and Information Science

Linguistics

Literature

Mathematics

Media

Military

Music

Philosophy

Physics

Politics

Psychology

Religion

Sociology

Sports

Technology

Theater

Visual Arts

On Proposed Grouping - Natural Science

Should Health Science(s) not be a part of "Biology"? Supten 23:14, 13 November 2006 (CST)

Biology would encompass stuff like Botany and Zoology, while Health Sciences focuses on human physiology and medicine. The idea being that doctors should gravitate towards health sciences, and biologists towards Biology. You are correct that there is a lot of overlap, though.

Discipline Workgroups

should point to the "Category' with that title rather than the specific page with that title! Supten 23:18, 13 November 2006 (CST)

The goal is to at some point revamp categories, or do away with them on the user page. Ideally before we go live. Therefore, it's better to have the main pages for each workgroup be well done. --ZachPruckowski 07:56, 14 November 2006 (CST)

Actually, we want several columns in a table: the article page (e.g., Philosophy); the workgroup homepage (e.g., CZ:Philosophy Workgroup; the article category page (e.g., Category:Philosophy Workgroup); the editor category page (e.g., CZ:Philosophy Editors; maybe an author category page (e.g., CZ:Philosophy authors).

By the way, I much prefer "Category:Philosophy Workgroup" to "Category:Philosophy," because what we are categorizing are not articles, but which workgroup has responsibility for which articles. This is an important difference! We don't want all and only articles that happened to be categorized "Philosophy" articles by Wikipedia necessarily to be managed by our own Philosophy workgroup. For this we make our own decisions. --Larry Sanger 14:30, 19 November 2006 (CST)

Business

Should business be part of Applied Arts and Sciences ? It should be in the same category than Economics.. Anh

Confusion

I have no idea why the editors list and authors lists aren't being displayed. I'm trying to figure it out... Note, these should be categories, not in the CZ Pilot workspace. --Larry Sanger 21:46, 19 November 2006 (CST)

You've inadvertently added this page to each of those categories. There's a way to make it link to that page without having it add you to that category, I just don't know how yet either --ZachPruckowski 22:00, 19 November 2006 (CST)

You do it like this, with a leading colon: Category:Philosophy Authors. I just don't know it's not working! The bizarre thing is that it's working for the "Article list" categories, but not the next two columns...but they are coded exactly the same way in the template! --Larry Sanger 22:04, 19 November 2006 (CST)

OK, now it seems to be working (at least for me). maybe you had to change the page to get it to reload the template? Anyhow, I'm going to finish my news reporting and go to bed, because I have to be up at 6 am to report it. I'll do more template adding tommorrow if I get a chance. For anyone curious, the templates are <nowiki>

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

XXX Workgroup
XXX article	All articles (0)	To Approve (0)	Editors: active (0) / inactive (0) and Authors: active (0) / inactive (0)	Workgroup Discussion
	Recent changes	Citable Articles (0)
		Subgroups (0)

Checklist-generated categories: Underlinked (0) Cat Check (0) Cleanup (0) Subpage categories: Definitions (0) Related Articles (0 to check 0) Bibliography (0) External Links (0) Gallery (0) Video (0)

Missing subpage categories: Definitions (0) Related Articles (0) Bibliography (0) External Links (0) Article statuses: 0 Developed (status=1) 0 Developing (status=2) 0 Stub (status=3) 0 External (status=4) 0 Advanced (status 0-1) 0 Nonstub (status 0-2) 0 Internal (status 0-3)

This page lists all the active Editors who have joined the XXX Workgroup.
See also Inactive XXX Editors. and

Workgroups are no longer used for group communications, but they still are used to group articles into fields of interest. Each article is assigned to 1-3 Workgroups via the article's Metadata.

XXX Workgroup
XXX article	All articles (0)	To Approve (0)	Editors: active (0) / inactive (0) and Authors: active (0) / inactive (0)	Workgroup Discussion
	Recent changes	Citable Articles (0)
		Subgroups (0)

Checklist-generated categories: Underlinked (0) Cat Check (0) Cleanup (0) Subpage categories: Definitions (0) Related Articles (0 to check 0) Bibliography (0) External Links (0) Gallery (0) Video (0)

Missing subpage categories: Definitions (0) Related Articles (0) Bibliography (0) External Links (0) Article statuses: 0 Developed (status=1) 0 Developing (status=2) 0 Stub (status=3) 0 External (status=4) 0 Advanced (status 0-1) 0 Nonstub (status 0-2) 0 Internal (status 0-3)

This page lists all the authors who have joined the XXX Workgroup. where XXX is the name of the field. -- ZachPruckowski, sometime on Nov. 19th, 2006.

Computer Science?

Into which workgroup would the topic Computer Science fit in? Mathematics workgroup, Computers workgroup, somewhere else? My guess would be that Mathematics would be most appropriate out of the two, and there are already some related topics there such as Automata theory and Cryptography. I would have suggested an independent Computer Science Workgroup, but I am not sure it is such a good idea to split things up further than needed - the WP WikiProject on Computer Science is rather inactive right now. What do others think?--Konstantin Tchernov 21:48, 21 November 2006 (CST)