User talk:Deryck Chan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For older comments, please see:

Pretty tense IRL.
The Signpost
25 September 2017
Administrators' Newsletter
October 2017


  1. I'll reply here and tag you with {{yo}}, unless you request otherwise.
  2. Please sign all your comments with ~~~~

Start a new topic!


Precious five years![edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Do we have this somewhere in en.wp?[edit]

Somehow, I cannot find if we have modeled the whole Chinese family tree in English Wikipedia. Are you aware of somewhere that we've done this? Example: [1]. I can only find Chinese kinship. -- Fuzheado | Talk 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Fuzheado: No, I'm not aware of the article and the lack of a diagram. The terms tend to be very geography-specific, though (from personal experience) there seems to be a Mandarin standard and a Cantonese standard which are widespread and have agreed names for everybody within 3 degrees of kinship. The PDF you cited conflates Mandarin and Cantonese standard terms slightly, as is the Wikipedia article. The best online sources I've found are these two YouTube videos by the same Chinese-American channel: Cantonese standardMandarin standard and this Android app (HK Cantonese standard): [2] --Deryck C. 11:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah that Youtube is great. I'm a bit surprised no one has taken this project up. I ran into this when I was looking into Wikidata, to see if these had been modeled there. It hadn't. Then I realized it was not even written up well in Wikipedia. Can you check to see if zh.wp has it any meaningful way, and would you be interested in finding folks to try to tackle this? Thanks! -- Fuzheado | Talk 12:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Fuzheado: I'm not surprised. This system is so culture-specific that I'd argue Wikidata ought not to model it. (In fact I got "Uncle" and "Aunt" deleted 4 years ago.) @春卷柯南: You might be interested in this? Deryck C. 12:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Revolutionary War listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Revolutionary War. Since you had some involvement with the Revolutionary War redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Appah Rao (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Appah Rao: Thanks for the message. The previous RfD was sufficiently long ago so it is appropriate to reopen the discussion. I participated in the previous RfD on a purely clerical basis and have no personal opinion on this topic. Deryck C. 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi Deryck, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ansh666: You're welcome! Have fun with your new buttons. Deryck C. 14:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Open access journal[edit]

Hello Thomas. Thanks for your Wikipedia email. At this stage I'm not sure what I can commit to, but I'd be interested to know more about the proposed wiki-based scientific journal. Can we continue the discussion by talk page messages so there will be a public record of it? Deryck C. 12:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: Talkpage discussion works fine for me (I've it moved to your talk page but feel free to move back to mine). The background is that WikiJournals are an attempt to improve Wikipedia-academia integration by encouraging contribution by outside experts (both in writing and peer-reviewing)[1] in a format that is more familiar to most academics, and generates citable publications.[2] There has been a WikiJournal of Medicine running for a while now.[3] There has been interest in extending this to a broader WikiJournal of Science that would encompass all STEM topics. There are a few physicist on board, but I'm reaching out to some people from additional fields to ask if they'd be interested in helping out. The main tasks would be to invite authors to submit works, and to organise expert peer reviews. It wouldn't have to be a huge number, but just a few articles to build a first issue. I'll be helping to build the necessary infrastructure pages over the coming weeks. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Shafee, Thomas; Mietchen, Daniel; Su, Andrew I. (2017-08-11). "Academics can help shape Wikipedia". Science. 357 (6351): 557–558. PMID 28798122. doi:10.1126/science.aao0462. 
  2. ^ Allen, Liz; Scott, Jo; Brand, Amy; Hlava, Marjorie; Altman, Micah (2014-04-17). "Publishing: Credit where credit is due". Nature. 508 (7496): 312–313. doi:10.1038/508312a. 
  3. ^ Shafee, Thomas; Das, Diptanshu; Masukume, Gwinyai; Häggström, Mikael. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4 (1). doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 

@Evolution and evolvability: I'm not sure I'm qualified to be a reviewer...? What is your target group of contributors? Deryck C. 17:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deryck Chan: At the moment, we're more looking for people either able to organise external peer of submissions (to differentiate from GA and FA), and to help wikify and format submissions from authors who've never used Wikipedia before. You can see a few more details at this page (any redlinks from it should be blue in the next few days as I finish site construction). The workload wouldn't be high. Helping to organise peer review involves searching for qualified reviewers on google scholar (and sending pre-formtted review requests), and formatting would require watching this page. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 06:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Hi, Deryck - no trick questions, just sincerely trying to sort through a few things in my head. Do you consider "affirmative bias" and "racial equivalency" as being in the same category? Atsme📞📧 14:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

No. I have never heard of the latter term and there is no Wikipedia article about it. Deryck C. 18:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"Racial equivalence" is a better choice of words - it's along the same lines as False equivalence, except the latter is broader in scope because it takes in gender issues. Perhaps "affirmative bias" plays into it as well, depending on one's perspective? Atsme📞📧 16:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: I still don't understand. Is "racial equivalence" a state of affairs (all races are just the same), a moral value (one believes that all races should be treated equally in all matters), or a policy proposition (to enact rules so that different races would reach some standard of equivalence)? Deryck C. 17:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)