User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 1

← Current talk page

AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 1

Archive 2 →

All talk threads up to the end of 2010

Created template {{Spoken}}

As you have been doing such a wonderful job with adding spoken texts, I thought that it might be useful to have a template for the Author pages. So I created {{Spoken}} which you may wish to consider using, amending or whichever. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

line breaks

I made a change to line breaks here. Note the comment, but this is how it is usually done. And welcome! Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the sister links. billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Soft redirects

Hi Adam. When creating a soft redirect (such as with pages related to Black Vulmea's Vengeance), please take care to remove the #REDIRECT clause from the top of the page. Otherwise, the page will remain a hard redirect. You don't need to worry too much about indirection in intrawiki links, as eventually, the soft redirect bot will shortcut them. Thank you!--GrafZahl (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

?

Please keep other peoples sections when editing, [1]. feydey (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Portal related

Hi, hope this finds you & your's well...

First off, the Portal stuff looks great so far. Many thanks for undertaking something sorely overlooked month after month.

Upon a closer look, I think the Portal frame I started for the Government of the United States might not be the best named. Originally I was just thinking of separating the Federal government and its 3 branches from the 50 states and their government(s). The actual division of power is the Federal Government and the State governemnts - both of which technically make up the entire "Government of the United States". Throw in the historical aspect mentioned in the LLC class tree and the "Confederated States" makes for a third main sub-class to our Class J. In light of this, I'm thinking its better in the long run to have Portal:Government of the United States parent these three main sub-divisions and rename the current portal to a more specific Portal:Federal Government of the United States. What do you think and would there be any negative impact on what you're doing/have planned? TIA. George Orwell III (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.

If you think changing Portal:Government of the United States is the best approach, go ahead. It won't have any negative impact on anything I'm doing. My plan is that Wikisource always takes priority. I'm trying to fit the Portals to the LLC system but I won't force it.

For instance, Classes E and F should be the history of America, but a lot of this was mostly covered by the pre-existing Portal:States of the United States, so I changed Class E to match that portal rather than changing the portal to match the Library of Congress. (If someone later on disagrees, they can re-arrange this but it seemed the best way forward.) I've split some subclasses and made up Classes I and X for the same reason.

So, if three sub-divisions of the Government of the United States is the best way to set it out on Wikisource, then that should be the way to go. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you open to being proposed as an administrator?

Hi AdamBMorgan. You have been sitting there as a quiet achiever, and now that you have embarked onto the Portal space, I think that there would be benefits for having an admin resource for the moves and restructures that you are undertaking. Are you open to being nominated for the task? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be happy to be nominated. I don't think it would be absolutely necessary for the Portal space (I should be able to do most things anyway) but it might help. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ability to move without creating redirects is most useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The deed is done. You may wish to accept the nomination at wikisource:Administrators#AdamBMorgan — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

portal link

Has there been a discussion about linking from main space to the portal namespace? cygnis insignis 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. I have been converting links to Wikisource pages into links to Portals where I have converted the corresponding index into a portal (in the main space this is always in the "Previous" parameter of the header). That practice seems common enough but I don't know if it was ever planned. There is the template {{Portal}}, which does the same thing, but it isn't in use anywhere; I am not sure where it should go if it ever is. I think it would make sense to provide links as an additional way to find similar works (after categorisation), either in the header or from the talk page (alternatively, linking from the category pages). I was thinking about starting a discussion about this in the Scriptorium but I haven't got around to it yet.- AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I recognise that this was simply replacing the links to the Wikisource ns at previous = in the header. They exist, however, I believe that practice was deprecated. I've been removing them when I see or improve pages. cygnis insignis 22:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't know that. I'll go back through and remove those I've changed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't do that on my say so, my opinion and recollection is not a consensus. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure it is controversial. What happens in the portal namespace is of little concern to me, but linking from main is; the architecture of the site requires a lot of caution and discussion. The same goes for the category system, we currently have vaguely defined and redundant systems that people have worked on. I don't want anyone wasting their time. As you have pointed out, the portal system has been used in many ways. Your approach has the merit of reflecting a system outside of wikisource,and has no direct impact on what is uncontroversial (adding works to main), but being given a 'green light' was a little premature. cygnis insignis 22:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

btw, if I voted, and you needed it, you would have mine. cygnis insignis 22:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion in Scriptorium, and it partly included use of {{indexes}} and (temporary) use of cross namespace redirects, contra to our normal practice; which at the same time there was the creation of the {{portal}} template. Personal opinion is that the use of indexes with redirect in place until all migrating Wikisource: namespace pages is suitable and when all the pages have been moved, at which point we can update {{indexes}} to point to the Portal: namespace. The indication from earlier times was to stop using the previous = parameter in {{header}} and there is some commentary around somewhere from Pathoschild about why use of previous should be considered bad practice. With regard to being given lights, there has been ample discussion, no better solutions put forward and we are crying out for a solution in that space. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed the portal links from the main namespace. I will bring up the subject in Scriptorium when the migration is done and there's something to which to link. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Portal classification

Do you know how to classify astrology, since it is not considered a science? I don’t know what to put it under. Thanks and sorry for the interruption. --Xxagile (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

It's under Subclass BF: Psychology according to this page (near the bottom, just below Necromancy of all things). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Portals and Years

Is there a standard means to refer to thing by year under our classification system? Here I am thinking that we have a number of bits that we categorise by year, eg. year of work, year of death, year of birth. If we had Portal:Years can it be classified, and then we could link to the various categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be anything specific (I've browsed the LoC site and searched on Google Books as well as consulting the LCC schedules themselves). You may have to pick an option. The closest the standard LCC system seems to have is just "X by period" subsections within the other classifications (history and literature mostly). Some of the subclasses under Class A (General Works) might work. Subclass ZA (Information resources) is another possibility. Finally, since I added Class X to cover Wikisource-specific items (the WikiProject portals mostly), anything that turns out to be unclassifiable and doesn't fit anywhere else can be put here if necessary. Portal:Years could be added as subclass XB (or XY if you would like the Y to refer to Years), with the other portals as child portals. (We should probably avoid adding too many custom [sub]classes but there are 25 letters still available under X and I expect there will be other things that only apply to Wikisource and wouldn't occur in the Library of Congress or any other library). I think the last option might be the easiest solution as it cuts through the classification problem. Sorry I can't be more helpful with this one. Which method would you prefer? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi,

You are now a sysop. If you know any other languages than English, please list them under your name at WS:ADMINS. Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Congrats. Welcome to the world of the improved mop. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, both. Now, to Wikiversity! - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The King in Yellow

I noticed this story was in Category:Cthuluhu Mythos and I'm not sure why, does Lovecraft refer to this tale or something so it's the same universe? Dictabeard (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Answered on your talk page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying this for me, I wasn't aware as I haven't gotten a chance to thumb the works indepth yet. I am wondering, as we've a subcategory for Cthulu related stories, should there be a subcategory for Cthulu stories specifically by Lovecraft himself, so that those in the parent category would be ones by author authors preceding or succeeding him? Dictabeard (talk) 09:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh geez, hey I'm sort of a random anime fan and I found this and like... wow. [2] apparently it's based on Nyarlathotep. Some fans translated the commercial comedy shorts [3]/[4] so in case you're interested in it. This'll be fun to bring up at the cthulu communities. Dictabeard (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)