Talk:Petrodollar

Thanks

Another useful article subject. You are initiating some much need and good stuff PD. Much appreciated. Thanks. --Peter P (talk) 10:17, 8 September 2014 (IST)

Can I ask you put an appropriate page credit on pages where much of the content is sourced from elsewhere - especially applicable to Wikipedia-sourced pages like this one. Use Template:PageCredit --Peter P (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2014 (IST)

I'll have a look into how to do that - though it will become less like the WP version the longer I work on it. --Two Dogs (talk) 11:00, 8 September 2014 (IST)

I see you've already done the template - you're pretty good at tiding up after me :o) I'll bear it in mind for the future though. --Two Dogs (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2014 (IST)

more templates

I've just added a couple more templates:

1. Template:SMWDocs. This is very simple, and belongs on almost all wikispooks pages, just above the "References" section. This tells SMW where to place any sections of links to other Wikispooks material.
2. The other is an object template of your choice, and allows suitable references to this page to appear on the other pages. The choice is limited to those on the SMWObject page (and I only recommend the 'stable' ones, so there are currently only 7 to choose from). In this case I chose template:concept, which is the catch-all for when there isn't a good match. Robin (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2014 (IST)

Official Narrative

This is a 1:1 copy of an WP article. Having spent some days reading relevant literature on the topic this gives me some headaches. If TwoDogs agrees, I'll take the freedom to include some different angles. --Urban (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2014 (GMT)

Maybe this article could use an "Official Narrative" section at the start to help clarify the deception which surrounds petrodollars? Robin (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2014 (GMT)

Hi Robin, I thought about that - there are several official narratives surrounding the topic. I take it as inspiration to sum them up. BTW, section The_Price_of_Oil does include some remarks about Official Narrative. Two questions: 1) How do I get italics rendered? 2) How to add regular WS pages to the "Related Documents" section? Also: thank you for correcting some of the misspellings and clumsy phrasing of a non-native speaker in my previous attempts --Urban (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2014 (GMT)

1. Italics are easy - just use two "'" (single quote) characters.
2. Adding regular WS pages to the "Related Documents" section section is not currently possible, but is an interesting idea that might be worth enabling. Which pages would you like to put there? Robin (talk) 06:26, 15 November 2014 (GMT)

Thanks for taking the time.

1. this is not rendered as italics here. The problem seems to be on my side. Anyway.
2. I wanted to find out how the algorithm determines 'related documents' so I can give it a hint in the source. These two fit nicely:

** https://wikispooks.com/wiki/File:The_Network_of_Global_Corporate_Control.pdf

** http://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=Document:The_State,_the_Deep_State,_and_the_Wall_Street_Overworld

--Urban (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2014 (GMT)

Clarification needed. Ordinary pages cannot yet appear under "Related documents", but items in the document: namespace can. The documents which appear in this section all have Petrodollar as one of their subjects. I was going to add this subject to File:The Network of Global Corporate Control.pdf, but is it really about that? It seems more of an indirect relationship, so not that suitable as a subject. At some stage, automatically generated "See also" sections might be good though. The relevant template is Template:RelatedDocuments. Robin (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2014 (GMT)

Indirect relationship, yes. It turns out that petrodollars have a lot to do with corporate networks which benefited. But if adding to the "Related documents" list requires changes in the subjects field of the related docs/files - that's not what I intended and I agree that "petrodollar" is an unsuitable subject for these two pages.

There is no problem adding to the subjects field of related documents. The best way to do so, quick and simple, is to use Edit with Form on the relevant document page, then simply add another entry in the subjects field, comma-delimited. The field 'Subjects' is somewhat analgous to tags on a regular blogs and can be used to point to related pages when there is relevant document content - a matter of judgement really; how best to provide useful, subject-related navigation links is what its about --Peter P (talk) 10:47, 16 November 2014 (GMT)

If I want to highlight references which point to internal WS pages I can do so verbatim in the ref list. I might be looking into Template programming later, but automatically generated "See also" sections seem not so far from what Template:RelatedDocuments does.--Urban (talk) 08:33, 16 November 2014 (GMT)

Splitting this material

I've just added a short pointer here from Federal Reserve System. I prefer the inline text links where possible, seeing "See Also" as a convenient shorthand, but less useful. What do you think about making another subpage or two, a la Petrodollar/Recycling? Shortening the page length would boost readability and there is some material here which could work well under a different title. How about a Petroleum/Politics as a replacement to Wikipedia's Petroleum politics? Or Petroleum/Deep politics? Robin (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2015 (GMT)

It would be great if you could do that. I am busy with my job ATM. Just provide the structure you see fit and I'll fill in the contents later --Urban (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2015 (GMT)