User talk:Drew R. Smith

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

			User:Drew R. Smith/Sandboxes	User:Drew R. Smith/monobook.js
User	Talk	Contributions	Sandboxes	monobook.js

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

 Where Drew lives it is approximately: 06:03

Drew R. Smith

Current talk page

My archives are done by topic, not date. General - Template - Manuel of Style - Hawaii

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

Tools and Communication

• My Userpage
• My Talkpage
• Forums
• My Watchlist
• Recent Changes
• Restoration Projects
• Media Projects
• My Contribs
• My Sandboxes
• Charter Drafting Election

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

• All Images

Subpages

• Sandbox
• Sandbox2
• Sandbox3
• Sandbox4
• Sandbox5
• Header
• Talk Header
• Sidebar
• To Do List
• My Articles
• familytree.js
• My monobook.js

Archives

• Hawaii Archive
• MOSArchive
• Templates Archive
• General Archive

King K

Righto, Drew, he's on my to-do list for tomorrow - Ro Thorpe 01:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. By the way, I haven't heard anyone use "righto" in awhile, and it made me smile. Drew R. Smith 09:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories & Line of succession

Hi Drew, you are contributing here about as long as I. So I am surprised that you do not yet know that categories are used for administrative purpose only. For lists (of kings) /Catalogs subpages to appropriate articles are used. In your case, probably Hawaii/Catalogs/Kings or similar. (See CZ:Categories)

Concerning the "Line of succession" I do not know what CZ policy is. My personal opinion is, that they bloat up a minimum of information that could be given simpler and better in one sentence. Probalbly, in most cases, it need not be given at all: If the corresponding catalog is well-organized and commented an in-text link at an appropriate place (e.g., from "eleventh") would be sufficient and more appropriate.

Peter Schmitt 11:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I had no idea about the categories. I guess I'll go ahead and tag them with a speedydelete template. Thats a shame though, they're so much easier to use than those catalogue subpages...

As for the lines of succession, I have always liked having them stand apart from the text. Being able to view all the hawaiian heads of state from Pili to Governorn Linda Lingle is much simpler than having to search the text for a link that may or may not take you where you want to go. Also, the succession box isn't new, nor is it unused. All I did was change it to use the {{box}} template, and make the color customizable. If you go to {{succession box}} and check the "what links here", you can see that many articles already incorporate this.

I do agree that the succession box is a little bloated, and could stand to be toned down a bit. I'll take a look at it and see what I can do.Drew R. Smith 11:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that one of the reasons might be that lists should not be merely collected automatically, but be conciously edited and organized by an author (for better value). Maybe someone can tell us more about it?
As far as the succession lines/boxes are concerned, I am curious if and how others will comment them. Peter Schmitt 11:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I can see the concern with categories. At WP, I've seen articles on one subject end up in categories on a comletely different subject because one of the templates used automatically appends it. In my defense, I was editing and organizing the contents of that category consciously. But again, I can see the issues that could arise, and will stop.

Again, the succession boxes have been in use long before I got here. I doubt anyone will have much to say, if at all.Drew R. Smith

On second thought, I'll take a look at the catalog subpage, and see if I can fit the info into that. I do think the successor and predecessor need to be clearly set apart from the text.Drew R. Smith 11:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you did not think of this possibility: You can copy the category lists to your sandbox or to a catalog before deleting. And as suggestion, I think, the catalog(s) would best be ordered chronologically or as table (and/or using the r template?). Concerning the succession boxes once more: it was/is just my personal opinion. Peter Schmitt 12:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that they should be ordered chronologically. I was going change them as soon as I could figure out how to tweak the DEFAULTSORT: thingy to do what I want. Thanks for the suggestion about copying the lists before deleting them. That gave me the idea of using a blank category (i.e. adding a page to a category, but leaving it blank) so I can get the list without actually creating the category. Then I can just remove the category tags when I'm done with them.

Concerning the succession boxes once more: I halfway agree with you. ;-) Drew R. Smith 12:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles on books...

In response to your question, I don't really collaborate on such articles. Sorry, I just don't have an opinion right now about it. Russell D. Jones 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

a question for you

First, what prompted the question: The Mauna Kea article calls the big island and the state it's in "Hawaiʻi". This strikes me as not quite right, but I wanted to ask you before I make changes. It makes sense to me that the island's named would be written using glottal stops because it is named in the Hawaiian language. I don't know about the name of the state, though, because the webpage for the state government uses a glottal stop for the County of Hawai'i but not for it's own name (scan this page, for example). Neither does the state constitution itself use glottal stops to refer to the state, although the title that appears at the top of a web browser for the online version of the constitution does use it. --Joe Quick 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This branch of the government uses both side by side! Look at the text curved around the state seal at the top of the page and then at the seal itself. --Joe Quick 14:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The use of glottal stops today is tricky business. The U.S. Government doesn't recognize the glottal stop as a real letter, so when you are talking about the modern "State of Hawaii" in an "official" (i.e. government) way, the glottal stop is usually omitted. The government here in Hawaii does recognize the importance of the glottal stop, so most of their websites and documents do include it.

On the other hand, the constitution was written between the creation of the Hawaiian alphabet and the adoption of the glottal stop, so you won't see it there either. The constitution you're linking is different than the one I was talking about. I thought you meant the original one written by native Hawaiians with the help of the missionaries.

For CZ use, I'd say use glottal stops for everything that needs them except when referring to Hawaii as a united state. Examples, Ancient Hawaiʻi, Hawaiʻi (island), State of Hawaii, Hawaiʻian Monarchy. I've also heard the monarchy/kingdom reffered to as the "sovereign state of Hawaiʻi", but it's not widely used.

Hope this helps. Drew R. Smith 21:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had already made the distinction in the article. I usually write the article first and add glottal stops afterwards. Apparently I only did the intro, and did it wrong. It's fixed now. Drew R. Smith 21:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a question for you. What do you think of the coordinates template at the top of the Mauna Kea article? I got the idea from WP, but ours functions quite differently than theirs, and in my opinion, better. Drew R. Smith 21:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The uses you suggest are exactly what my gut told me but I learned a lot about not listening to your gut from a certain leader who was in office between 2000 and 2008... Thanks for clearing that up.

I like the idea of the coordinates but they seem a little intrusive in that particular spot. Maybe it should go in the infobox.--Joe Quick 21:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't know if I can do that... Might be difficult, but I'll try... Can't promise anything, ok? Drew R. Smith 21:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

hehe. For all my sarcasm above, it actually was more difficult than I had originally thought. I had to change the article, the infobox, and the template. But I do think it looks better now. Drew R. Smith 22:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks really good. I'm going to try to find some time to read the article in more detail soon. --Joe Quick 16:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete problem

No, it is not solved. I restored it. You use the r template. That means you transclude the Definition subpage - and this page does not exist! Peter Schmitt 00:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletes

Hi Drew,

Please go back to all your new speedy delete requests and put both a reason in and your name -- otherwise I'm not certain whether to delete them or not. Thanks! Hayford Peirce 17:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry. I was trying to help figure out the problem with the speedy delete template, but I gave up because it was beyond me. I'll go mark the ones I created. Drew R. Smith 21:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please take over as Administrator of the "New Draft of the Week" and the "Article of the Week"?

Hi, Drew. I've been doing the transclusion of articles and the weekly change over for some months now ... and I'm looking for someone to take over. Would you please do so? I would appreciate it very much.

All you have to do is add your name as an Adminstrator. I would be happy to help if you run into any problems and Daniel Mietchen will also help you if asked. Milton Beychok 04:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I could do it. And I really wouldn't mind either. The only thing is, I don't think I'd be able to do the changeover at the same time you've been doing it because of my work schedule. If thats not a problem, and as long as I can get some help I'll give it a go. Drew R. Smith 09:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with doing the weekly change at some other time or even some other day. The steps involved include:

• When someone makes a new nomination for AOTW, check that it is either an approved or a status 1 article. For new NDOTW nominations, check the date of creation.

• For new nominations of either AOTW or NDOTW, do the transclusion so that the article appears in the transcluded section as it would appear on the CZ Welcome page when and if it is a winner. Daniel Meitchen's instructions for that are here. One addition to his instruction is that references should not be included in the transcluded part of the article. Eliminate them by enclosing them between two <noinclude>s.

• After making the weekly change, go back to past week's winners and remove the transclusion tags.

• The messiest part is that after adding the transclusion tags on the Edit page of a nominated article, the article must be saved before you can see it on the AOTW or NDOTW page to see whether it is too long or too short. If it is, then you have to go back to the article's Edit page, change where the final transclusion tag is placed and check the length again on the AOTW and NDOTW page. I try to make the article fit into no more than the height of my 19-inch monitor.

Thats about it. The only problem right now is that there are no new nominees for either the AOTW or the NDOTW. Thanks for your cooperation. Milton Beychok 13:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, count me in. I'll probably end up doing the change later than you did it, but it will still be thursday. Well, due to time differences, it would still be wednesday for me, but then again, its always been changed on wednesday for me. Of course, with my late scheduling at work, I could probably just wait one more hour and call it Thursday 12:00am Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time... Drew R. Smith 13:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, on the rare occasion that I'm scheduled to work in the morning instead of at night on the day of the change over, could I ask you to do it instead? Drew R. Smith 13:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Milton Beychok 13:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)