User talk:Canele

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history

Hello and welcome! If you have a message or a question for me, just click "Add topic" and a new discussion will be opened for you automatically. (If you prefer to do so manually, kindly add any new topics at the bottom of the page; I appreciate the assistance keeping the page in chronological order.)

Thanks for contacting me and I'll get back to you as soon as I am able!

Welcome to MEpedia![edit source | reply | new]

MEpedia is a wiki, like Wikipedia, but focused on the science, people and history of M.E. All its content is created by volunteer contributors, like you. Every contribution to MEpedia, however small, moves the project forward. All changes to pages can be undone so you can edit confidently, but take it one step at a time and start with small improvements to existing pages. Thank you for joining us!

To see your contributions history, click Contributions in the top-right corner. To see recent contributions by others, click Recent Changes on the left. Not ready to edit pages, but want to suggest a change? On the page, just click Discussion, and write your suggestion there for others to see.|realName=|name=Canele}}

-- New user message (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2019 (EST)

Handling misspelled names[edit source | reply | new]

Hi Canele,

I appreciate all the work you have been doing on the site. Re: mispelled names - I can't find where Wikipedia keeps misspelled names as a page redirect. I think keeping misspelled names clutters up the drop down menu. Kmdenmark (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2019 (EST)

Hi User:Kmdenmark, thanks for your message and sorry I didn't include the en-WP policy link from the start--it's here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons_for_not_deleting (I was especially thinking of items 2, 4, and 5). Wikipedia does delete rather than redirect some misspellings but only if it's misleading in some way, or "implausible" that someone might make the same mistake (e.g. if the correct name were Clare Longlastname, WP would keep Claire Longlastname as a redirect to help readers find Clare, because but not Clard Longlastname, because that's not likely to recur). That's why my inclination was to keep Zach for Zack, but yes I can see that it might confuse readers who put the name into the search bar and then wonder if there are two different researchers (less of a problem on Wikipedia when putting anything into the search bar will always give you a large number of results.) It does seem to be a tradeoff, in terms of streamlining that versus preventing inadvertent dead ends--I've found several so far in going through the top redlinked pages.
Hm. Well this isn't the most urgent question, we can always add deleted redirects back if we decide later we want them, but maybe I'll put a note on the discussion page of the MOS to see if there are more opinions on what people find useful--in the end, whatever most people find most useful will be the best thing to do! Canele (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Actually probably a better question for Talk:Editorial Guidelines so it's there! Canele (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2019 (EST)

New topics[edit source | reply | new]

I saw you were looking at wanted pages and new topic areas.

I think a biomedical research page and info on different types of research would be great. I looked into it and it seems social-behavioral is another type. "Biomedical research" is a phrase used on many pages so I thought it might be helpful to list examples of what is and what is not biomedical research.

The origins of CBT & GET aren't covered either - the Primers mention the PACE trial but that wasn't published until 2011. The UK's NICE guidelines were using both from 2007. Studies go back to at least the 1990s though.

An existing area which could be covered much better is genes and gene testing. Many come up in different studies but gene testing results and DNA don't seem explained. Promethius has limited info on genes linked to CFS and fibro. There's also info on genes linked to certain medication responses that might be helpful.

I wondered if these topics interested you. I'm currently adding pages for researchers and politicians who are advocates.

Njt notjusttired (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2019 (EST)

Thanks so much Njt! I really appreciate knowing what folks might find useful. I'm only just starting to get acquainted with ME/CFS research, but I'm wiki-competent and reasonably science-literate so I can definitely help get pages started and then very much welcome help from others developing them further (or adding myself as I get to know the field better).
Please feel free to let me know if you have more suggestions! Canele (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2019 (EST)

Bayesian Theorem Formula[edit source | reply | new]

Hi. I saw on the Suggestions page you suggested an image for Bayesian Theorem and had some questions about WikiMedia's Commons. Anything from Commons (or Wikipedia) should be licensed for re-use, and any image from elsewhere with a clear license allowing re-use is fine to copy and upload via Special:Upload - just fill in the image creator details to give them credit and pick the matching license from the drop-down box. A lot of images from academic research can also be re-used, check the Copyright / Licensing information in the article. Any image licensed as "Creative Commons Share Alike" can be edited as well as reused, provided edits are described and the original creator is credited.

The image you suggested looks blurred to me and it would be very simple to re-create a better quality version. Another possibility is to use a different one, eg the neon blue one or the tree diagram ones from the Wikipedia page. Looking at Wikipedia the same formula is on the page, created using wikitext code rather than an image, so copying that code is another option, or taking a screenshot and uploading even. notjusttired (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for the reply User:Notjusttired! As far as text, that actually is what I tried first, but Wikipedia appears to be using a template for coding math formulas that we don't have set up, unfortunately; I got an error message on MEpedia. As far as images go, ok, I see--there's no opportunity to use the image directly from the Commons, it'd need to be downloaded and reuploaded here (that's too bad, it's so convenient across WMF sites that you can just link to the file). I'll see about familiarizing myself. Thanks! Canele (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2019 (EDT)
Two files uploaded, File:Bayestheoremneon.jpg and File:Bayestheorem.png - you should have upload file rights now on Special:Upload. Copying the template from Wikipedia didn't work - I think it relies on a library or extension we don't have installed notjusttired (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

Starting new pages[edit source | reply | new]

Hi. It's good to see so much content being added, including for treatment centers. If you can use the example MEpedia:Article_outlines then it will make sure there's some See Also links, Learn more, and should suggest the most appropriate categories. Ideally this should help reduce the number of orphaned pages or pages that are not reachable from categories. Empty headings also prompt other editors wanting to improve Stub pages. Thanks again for your editing. notjusttired (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for the kind words Njt. I definitely do my best to fill in as much as I can though I prefer not to use the outlines; in my experience as a reader of MEpedia, including numerous headers with nothing in them creates visual clutter and avoidable cognitive strain in trying to find what info is available. I'm also not sure I believe it actually succeeds in drawing more edits later on to a given pages (I know that's the hope and it's a good one, but I'm not sure we have evidence people fill those pages in more often than they add to pages without the outlines. Over on Wikipedia, there's a lot of debate about whether the stub tags actually do anything, even with their explicit request for folks to add material.) Given there are many, many more MEpedia readers than editors, I personally favor prioritizing making it easiest for them to access what information is up. I understand others will have different views about the best way to edit, and I am glad the outlines exist as I'm sure they are really helpful to people who want to start a page but don't have a basic sense of what to add, but, just as an explanation as to why when I start a page, I only add the sections that I have the information to fill out. Canele (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2019 (EDT)
That's interesting. I don't keep up with Wikipedia myself. If you can always include Categories it should help the page to be found.
Information overload - this is particularly bad on mobiles / small screens, I've asked for some different skins to be added that will put the side menu at the top and reduce clutter. notjusttired (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks so much for putting in that formatting request Njt; gathering all this info only goes so far if it's difficult for folks to read! And I will do my best to learn the categories. It's honestly never been my strong suit, just not the way my brain works I guess (on Wikipedia I rely on software that semi-automates the process--one day maybe we'll have that too!) but I'll do my best, I started writing up a MEpedia:Categories page to acquaint myself better and share the info with others. Canele (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

How to learn categories[edit source | reply | new]

If someone finds a better way to learn the categories, other than just copying similar pages, or browsing the entire list of categories in Special:Categories, that might be a good thing to explain in the MEpedia:Categories page. We have a hierarchical category browser at Category:Fundamental, but it is of limited usefulness. We also have the CategoryTree extension installed. Maybe we should consider one of the category extensions listed here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Category:Category_extensions Pyrrhus (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

Oh, you know, Pyrrhus, I have no idea if we have the dev capacity to do this, but it does seem like the WP extension I mentioned, HotCat, is available for use on other wikis: here's the documentation on on Wikimedia Commons. It's totally amazing: it works in Visual Editor and you just type in a few letters of a category you think might be applicable and then it creates a dropdown menu, much like the search bar, to show you all the options that exist and you select which one/ones you want. It's so simple and saves you from trying to add categories that don't exist, saving, finding out they're redlinks, having to go back and delete those, manually search for which ones do exist, etc. Two thumbs up. Canele (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll definitely look into it! I forgot to mention that the Contents page is supposed to be the definitive listing of the categories and where pages belong. However, it's quite outdated and only Admins can update it.
Pyrrhus (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

MEpedia:Tutorial[edit source | reply | new]

Hi Canele! I just wanted to let you know that I will be working on the MEpedia:Tutorial page today. I am going to try to make it more of a tutorial and less of a “help reference”. Anything that looks like a “help reference” can be extracted out into a separate page, while anything essential to the actual tutorial will stay. Additionally, I was thinking of creating a category called “MEpedia help” and putting all the help reference pages into that category. That way, the “MEpedia help” category page can serve as a table of contents for all the help pages. Whaddya think?
Pyrrhus (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

Thank you so much for doing all this work, Pyrrhus. I am definitely on board with streamlining the startup guides as much as possible. Even if in some respects it's not totally complete, I think the priority is definitely to make something that folks see and go, "Oh ok, I can do that" rather than looking at a long page of instructions and thinking, "Oh man, if I have to read all this before I can even start, that's already all the spoons I've got." Because the truth is that many people could actually start and figure lots of it out without reading anything, don't want to scare those people off. Long way of saying: yes, for sure, if you have ideas about how to simplify the "MEpedia 101" and move the "200-level" explanations elsewhere, I think that'd be great! Canele (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
Okay, I'm done editing the MEpedia:Tutorial page. There's still a lot that can be done to make it more of a tutorial. (e.g. adding numbered lists and screenshots) But I was able to include all the basic concepts that MEpedia really wants new users to know. Everything through Step 5 should probably remain in the tutorial, but anything after Step 5 can safely be moved to other pages if you see fit. Hope this helps!
Pyrrhus (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2019 (EDT)
Wow that was a big job to tackle--well done, Pyrrhus! I think we should just let it settle and see what ideas percolate before we (ha, not that I did much!) attempt any more big organization--I'll read over it again over the next little bit and see if there are more ways I can help. Already, great job! Thank you! Canele (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (EDT)

Thanks for disambiguation![edit source | reply | new]

Hi User:Canele! Thanks so much for filling in the disambiguation category! I can't believe no one had bothered to do that yet.
According to Template:Disambiguation, the category is supposed to be called "Disambiguation pages", so I renamed the category, I hope that's okay with you. I also noticed that pages such as Nice Guidelines were using the following language to mark a disambiguation page:
{{Disambiguation}} __DISAMBIG__
I don't know exactly why it was done that way, but I'm guessing that is the way people have been doing it. Does this look right to you?
Thanks for all your help!
Pyrrhus (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2019 (EDT)

That all looks good to me Pyrrhus--thanks! I have no idea why that's the right code but it seems to work! My only suggestion might be that I favor putting templates (which are mostly instructions for editors) at the bottom of the page rather than the top, so that readers have less to read through to get to the info they want; since we editors are so fewer in number than readers, instructions for us seem like they should take a backseat to ease for readers.
Relatedly. I saw the updates to your user page--wowza that only 11 editors are active. I suppose I knew that looking at recent changes but gosh. Well hopefully getting the tutorial to be really good will make it easier for others to participate? I find the forums daunting but I know there's a ton of knowledge over there both in threads and in the brains of people who participate. Would be so great to make it easier for them to bring that over and make the collective knowledge organized and easily searchable here... Canele (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
I agree 110% on making it easier for people to learn. There has been discussion on the Slack group about how to recruit new editors, but I think the bigger problem is how to retain editors who have created an account but gotten confused or scared away by incoherent documentation. I hope the new tutorial is a step in the right direction. I tried to fit all the requested essential info into the smallest space possible, while marking non-essential information as an ‘Advanced Topic’.
That’s a good point about the placement of template tags. I’ll start a discussion on the MEpedia:Disambiguation talk page to see if people can agree on top or bottom of page. (I don’t have any strong opinions myself.)
Thanks again!
Pyrrhus (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
Pyrrhus, "editor retention" is music to my ears! Do you know anything about editing templates? I don't yet but could look into it--it'd be terrific to update the welcome message. Canele (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2019 (EDT)
If you’re talking about the “New User Message” that’s posted to user’s Talk pages, that has already been updated to correct the formatting. See Template:Welcome. We are just waiting for an admin to “flip the switch” so that the new Template:Welcome goes live. I’ll see if an admin can flip that switch tomorrow.
Pyrrhus (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2019 (EDT)
Oh great! I was thinking of suggesting it be trimmed as well, although maybe additionally so after the tutorial etc. is totally settled. But, why not now if there's someone available to update, we can do it again later. I'll post a preliminary idea to that discussion page. Canele (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2019 (EDT)

Wanted pages[edit source | reply | new]

These are listed under Special:WantedPages, I was hoping you or User:Pyrrhus could create them or create appropriate redirects for them with the documentation pages you are both working on right now. Help:Referencing for beginners MEpedia:Subpages Help:Shortened footnotes Things are looking so much better with your recent work. notjusttired (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2019 (EDT)

Thank you for all your template work, Njt! I am so excited the project is going to have so, so much more functionality now! I really hope it helps bring (and keep) more people on board. And I will definitely look into writing up those entries. I hadn't gotten to it yet partly because explaining referencing is one of the toughest tasks--but just shows how much new editors need an explanation! I'll get on it. Canele (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2019 (EDT)

StructuredDiscussions[edit source | reply | new]

Hi Canele! The idea of adding the StructuredDiscussions extension has been raised. This would allow editors to use the Talk pages without knowing wikitext. Do you have any insight into this? The other possible extension is the DiscussionThreading extension, which is simpler.
Pyrrhus (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2019 (EDT)

Retrieved from "https://me-pedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Canele&oldid=55826"