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 {{Editor_list|Field=XXX}} and {{Author_list|Field=XXX}} 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)
- I'd stick it in the Computers workgroup. I think that was a union of an original proposal's Internet and Computer Science groups. However, you're right in that Discrete Math and Cryptography are going to be joint articles between Math and Computers (at least as far as my basic CS education goes). --ZachPruckowski 00:06, 22 November 2006 (CST)
Architecture?
I am not sure about the categories. Per example: Colosseum, Great Pyramid of Giza, Parthenon, etc. are listed as "Architecture", but would not those be "Archaeology" or "History"?--Versuri 06:15, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- I tagged them as "Architecture Workgroup (Top)" as it was in CZ:High priority articles for pilot, but I think it is better to check it. --Versuri 16:40, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- Architecture will likely cover a lot of articles also belonging to other workgroups, since a lot of major architectural examples that people will be familiar with will have history behind them, or political/cultural significance. I think that the architecture workgroup can add to the architecture sections of some of those pages, but it'll also do the articles on "flying buttress" and "Gothic architecture". Also I'd like it to explain the point of those creepy gargyole things, because who ever decorates their building like that must be nuts :-) --ZachPruckowski 00:01, 23 November 2006 (CST)
Regions?
Should we have workgroup for discussing topics related to regions/countries - e.g., India / USA / UK , etc.? Supten 06:34, 30 November 2006 (CST)
- Please, see CZ:Geography Workgroup and Category:Geography Workgroup (Top).--Versuri 06:43, 30 November 2006 (CST)
- Is there any category as in WP e.g., Indian Wikipedians? In WP I have edited a substatntial number of articles related to India / Bengal but the CZ:Geography Workgroup does not point out towards any such category. Supten 03:39, 5 December 2006 (CST)
- There is not a sufficient number of geography authors. The workgroup have not started yet. --Versuri 05:43, 5 December 2006 (CST)
Proper place for Astronomy?
Hello All,
something to consider: is astronomy not a subdivision of physics (with huge links to math)? If so why create a new workgroup for astronomy as it (possibly) should be a sub-group for physics? Please your thoughts on this. Robert Tito 10:48, 3 February 2007 (CST)
You could be right. What we need to do is to collect all such requests for changes in one place. I suggest Citizendium Pilot talk:Discipline Workgroups. --Larry Sanger 11:06, 3 February 2007 (CST)
- There are two main issues to consider here. First is that the discipline of Astronomy must be considered not just in its present, modern-day form, but also historically. Was Astronomy always a sub-discipline of Physics? Historically, all the natural sciences were considered sub-disciplines of Philosophy (natural philosophy - remember Newton's Philosophiae naturalis Principia mathematica or Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). Surely you wouldn't want to see Astronomy (and with it Physics) rolled into Larry Sanger's discipline ;-) ? Just as interesting is the somewhat unfortunate phrase almost metaphysical (unfortunate because I don't know what it means to be almost metaphysical) which occurs in the lead paragraph of the present version of the CZ article on Astronomy. So maybe, at least in some respects, we are returning to that earlier era of natural philosopy.
- Secondly, taxonomy is as much a practical as a theoretical task. The above exposition shows how very arbitrary it can all be. Basicaly, Astronomy should be a separate workgroup, in spite of its enormous and growing integration with math and physics, because that is what people have come to expect and that is where people expect to turn for work on the subject. It's somewhat like organizing books in a bookstore. If your customers are expecting to find astronomy books in an astronomy section, then you create such a section, otherwise you lose sales. That's the way it is with essentially artivicial systems of taxonomy. James F. Perry 11:10, 3 February 2007 (CST)
Interdisciplinary Cycles Studies - where to put them
My interest in joining citizendium is cycles research which is an interdisciplinary field covering all manner of subjects - economics, biology, geology, astronomy, physics, history, etc etc. Therefore it doesn't sit neatly in the scheme of subjects unless added in its own right (which I generally find people object to). Any suggestions are welcome. I consider myself an expert in cycles research with a smattering of knowledge in many other fields. I would like to be an Author and Editor regarding cycles subjects. If this is possible then I will start making some contributions. Please see my user page for more info. RayTomes 18:36, 3 February 2007 (CST)
- I (RayTomes) have copied the following from my talk page to here as it seems this would be a good place for it:
- This didn't take a lot ot time to think about. Since I am in the as the americans call it natural sciences I know some about cyclic processes. The reason cyclicity faces alot of objection as a separate area is because it has angles with every area even outside "hard-core" science. For you to start I would take three major areas: chemistry, physics and math. Try to see where you can find a place to get a start - as elavoration.
- For one I can tell you physical science is one place to create your tree of cyclicity.
- But the generalities belong once again in math, and are related to physics.
- Hope this is something like an anchor where to start. Robert Tito 22:52, 29 January 2007 (CST)
- Thanks Robert. Of course the mathematical side of cycles is well accepted with Fourier analysis and other techniques. In physics and astronomy (and to a lesser extent chemistry) much of a cyclical nature is not actually referred to as such, but it is everywhere: spectra, simple harmonic motion, wave equations, planetary motion, etc etc. These are of interest and are part of the picture, however the main studies of cycles that are called as such is in the areas like climate and geology with Milankovitch cycles and other longer and shorter cycles, economics and business, animal populations (many instances), diseases, solar cycles (quite a few of these), biological rhythms especially circadian etc, and many many others. To get a brief overview of all this I would recommend the fine paper by Edward Dewey "The Case for Cycles" found at http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf which summarises much of the interesting interdisciplinary nature of discoveries. Anyone who reads and understands Dewey will never see their own area of science the same way again, I promise you. RayTomes 06:48, 4 February 2007 (CST)
Great Improvement to the Workgroups and new tools for Recent Changes
http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,539.0.html
excellent job chris on running with this idea. As we used to say, "you da man." As I mentioned in the forum post, it'd be nice to have few more features, but this is 500% better, if not more. Again, you rock. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:10, 16 February 2007 (CST)
Numismatics Workgroup
I think that a specialist Numismatics Workgroup should be created separately from the Hobbies Workgroup, as numismatics is a very specialised field in its own right. - (Aidan Work 04:11, 19 February 2007 (CST))
- I'm not sure this makes sense. Consider how many very specialised groups are under the umbrella of biology. This is only a first layer in the hierarchy. It would seem better to have the first layer of work groups as more general and then have sub workgroups within the more general workgroup. Chris Day (Talk) 04:26, 19 February 2007 (CST)
colours
I just changed the colours for the workgroups. See below for a comparison of the changes I made. I retained the lighter lightblue and light green and adjusted the others to be compatible with those two. Possibly the new colours are too pastel/light now. Any comments? Chris Day (Talk) 15:01, 28 February 2007 (CST)
Former workgroup colours
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Alternative colours?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Web compatible colours?
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|
Colour blindness
I had not considered colourblindness issues but clearly this needs to be considered when choosing navigation colours. We probably need to go back to the drawing board. Chris Day (Talk) 01:05, 2 March 2007 (CST)
small change
added economy to natural sciences
if nobody has any real objections, economy (being a subfaculty of the faculty of mathematics and natural sciences) will be totally moved into its natural place. Robert Tito | Talk 09:57, 9 March 2007 (CST)
Objection. First AFAIK the science is called economics, not economy. Second although economics has probably a much more math-based approach in parts of it (e.g. finance but also microeconomics trying to explain how the economy works in the first place) this is a science about how people interact by trading, working and consuming. No laws of nature involved (except of course TANSTAAFL ;-). IMHO it should be completely removed from natural science and only be mentioned under social science.