User talk:AdamBMorgan/2012

Cite Americana template

I think the changes to {{Cite Americana}} are a good idea, but only if a reasonable semblance of the original functionality is preserved. In this case, the template allowed an author to be specified, and the new implementation did not display the author when specified. Part of the problem was that the documentation did not have a case for this parameter. I have updated the doc so that it does, but I have reverted the changes since the author display was not working with the new implementation. In addition, the long parameter was not working. The purpose of that parameter is to reduce clutter so the citation is succinct. Since there is a link available, people can go there if they are really curious about where it was published, who the editor was, who the publisher was. But most of the time I think this is useless clutter. Some Wikipedia editors in some situations may not agree and can use the long parameter to get a fuller display. In any reimplementation, please consider preserving the functionality of this parameter, meaning use a succinct display by default. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added the author function to {{Cite Americana}} and adapted the long function. However, with the latter I have inverted the default, so the long form will be displayed as standard. This is the standard used by all other citation templates on Wikipedia, from {{Cite book}} to {{Cite wikisource}}. The latter is especially important, with reference to my work here, as I am attempting to unify and conform the many and varied citations to Wikisource to a common standard (by using the Cite wikisource template). I've also added the same long function to {{Cite Collier's}}. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I can live with this. I am not happy with the code, nor with a default display of all the parameters. All was not chaos before the arrival of {{Cite wikisource}}. {{Cite Americana}} and other templates were already generalized on {{Cite encyclopedia}}, which I think was appropriate, since that is what Americana is. While it is mostly used to link to Wikisource articles, it is meant to facilitate any citation of Americana, with any edition, URLs, article titles etc. To generalize it on two general templates, as I think you have seen, makes the code complex, I think needlessly, and makes contributions from other editors more difficult. Your new {{Cite wikisource}} facility could be very servicable for random Wikisource articles, but for the encyclopedias I think they do very well generalizing from {{Cite encyclopedia}} and this makes the most sense for them. I think it would make more sense to work on {{Cite encyclopedia}} to make it more serviceable to the needs of Wikisource encyclopedias. Adding the vb parameter there, and dedicating the first unnamed parameter to Wikisource links are two items that come to mind. The vb parameter would be useful for non-Wikisource links as well. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Both {{Cite encyclopedia}} and {{Cite wikisource}} feed through {{Citation}}, so there is little to no difference in that sense. Aside from the fact I cannot edit the fully protected Cite encyclopedia, doing so just moves the moderately complicated Wikisource links and icons across from one template to another. The complexity of the code would not be decreased either way and it would just begin to infringe on the non-Wikisource encyclopedias as well. Cite wikisource keeps the Wikisource functions in one place, which has advantages not only for uniformity but also for maintenance; a change here updates all instances at once rather than forcing editors to make lots of local changes. I don't see any extra complexity but I have increased the comments on {{Cite Americana}} for now (and I will extend this to all the other templates as I assimilate them or when I review them later).

As citation templates, rather than external links, all of the Cite... templates should have the necessary data for the reader to have complete information at hand, judge reliability etc. As standard on Wikipedia, this includes author, editor, publisher etc. Additionally, when scans are present (they are for Britannica although Americana has yet to be upgraded), the template can link directly to a page or to the scan itself, as suggested in the citation guidelines and enhancing perceived reliability of the reference (which is a criticism I have heard for Wikisource-based sources).

Regarding chaos, the desire for conformity and improvement arose first on Wikisource, initially related to WikiProject References to Wikisource, and there was a lot of variety, both of usage and output. Wikisource was created as a source for Wikipedia but it is rarely being used as such. This is part of an attempt to remedy that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:Cite Americana -- PBS (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Young Justice revert

You seemed unaware as to why the plot summaries were removed (by me). The information for upcoming episodes needs to be cited to reliable sources. Feel free to argue against that practice in the article discussion, but the reason for the removal was provided in the edit summary. I've removed it yet again, and if you feel strongly that it should remain, then initiate discussion. Until then, uncited info cannot remain in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant this edit. My plot summaries did have references although, strictly, they didn't need secondary sources, primary sources (ie. the episodes themselves) are appropriate for plot summaries. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be true, if the plot summaries were for episodes that had already aired. That isn't the case here. Having sources prevents scuttlebutt from a forum page making it into the encyclopedia as well as less well-intentioned material from being added. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

However, those episodes have aired—in Brazil. Wikipedia is open to a global audience, not just people in the United States. Several good faith additions seem to have been reverted so far, which is counter to Wikipedia's policy and somewhat WP:BITE-y. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you please cite where these these eps have all aired in Brazil? I kinda find that odd, since the show originates in the US. There is not BITE involved whatsover, Adam. I am just ensuring that we have citations - this is an encyclopedia, after all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been on en.wp for a few days. Anyway, Brazilian equivalents of TV Guide or other listings would count as reliable citations (I am not Brazilian so I do not have access to these). These episodes have been discussed on blogs (mostly Portuguese-language) and I am informed that copies (complete with the SBT channel watermark) are on the internet. It happens occasionally that US and overseas channels broadcasting the same product go out of sequence, especially with different broadcasting schedules. I recall Babylon 5 episodes premiering in the UK because the US system slots repeats in between new episodes while the UK prefers a straight run with no repeats. (Also, plot doesn't really need a citation; analysis of the plot would need a citation but a straigtht summary of the plot can be referenced to the episode itself). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, that would appear to be an inaccurate interpretation of our current policy and guidelines, Adam. In order to sidestep the need for citation in the plot summary, it has to be a summary of a program that has been broadcast - ie., something that everyone can possibly see and adjust the plot summary to find the mean summary that works for everyone without creating copyright violations. I am unaware of your stated precedent regarding B5, but I am fairly positive that Cartoon Network would simply release the last episodes of the series outside of its parent country prior to their broadcast within that parent country. As we cannot use YouTube, and cannot reliably cite its broadcast in Brazil, I am unsure how we can even mention it. We are not a news source, and we are absolutely not in a hurry to add the material. We're an encyclopedia. and only the most citable, reliable information should be present within any article that we add. That isn't always the case, but I think that needs to be the case here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yuderqui Contreras

Hey thanks for reviewing! I have already another DYK about Yuderqui Contreras. Since the article was expanded on July 20, 2012, should I still start the new one? The previous was already aproved and is on hold until the Olympics. ... that 2012 Olympian Yuderqui Contreras have been six times Weightlifter of the Year? Osplace 01:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the rules (rule D1), only one DYK is allowed per article. Sorry. Congratulations on getting the first DYK, however. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you very much. I will try to take the article to GA then, keep working. Osplace 19:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Gervais Street Bridge

Orlady (talk) 16:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Themes of author's works

Category:Themes of author's works, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mike Selinker (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)