User talk:Sardanaphalus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians.

Barnstar[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
Your contributions to the finer details of Wiki markup on various articles, at a rapid rate, is noticed and appreciated by others. Leep up the good work! MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Removing whitespace[edit]

Hi. Can I ask you to please stop removing whitespace from the sources of articles? It's there to help navigate articles when editing. Removing the whitespace makes my job harder than it needs to be. Thanks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, can you please avoid replacing "colwidth" parameters with a hard number of columns? A hard number of columns leaves too much whitespace on particularly large large or wide screens, and forces columns offscreen on small or vertical screens (like smartphones, not all users of which choose to view the mobile site). Thanks. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Understood – at least, the second point, I think – you have {{reflist}}s in mind..? If so, 30em is on the narrow side, but, yes, I wasn't thinking of "smart"phones etc. Not sure about your first point – whenever I remove (or add) whitespace, it's for the very reason you give: to make the various different kinds of article section easier to spot when moving around. So, I'm thinking I must be missing what you're getting at here..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
    • The 30em value for the first parameter of the reflist template is now very strongly preferred by the template's own documentation. I have been testing it in a variety of browsers, including mobile browsers, and I have to agree with the documentation writers that that is the way to go for current technology. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
    • You might want to take a look at the before and after sources of one of the pages I reverted to see what I mean about whitespace. Removing the formatting whitespace makes it significantly harder for me to navigate those pages---which I do a lot, having put hundreds of edits into each of those pages (two of which I've made FAs of and continue as the primary maintainer). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
      • Just viewed Louis Riel (comics) and now understand (I think) what you mean – the layout for the infobox code – so I've reapplied the editing there while retaining the whitespace. Thanks for all your work! Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
        • Thanks—though I was also talking about removing newlines between headers and images, which I use to find those items (not that you did that to Louis Riel now, just giving my rationale for having them—it can be time-consuming to find such items in a mass of text, especially after you've put the article to the side for a while). Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox power station[edit]

Hi, Sardanaphalus. You have been one of contributors to the {{Infobox power station}} or its preceding templates. Therefore I notify you that there is a discussion about changes to the power station infobox template. Your contribution is appreciated. Beagel (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Spirituality sidebar[edit]

Hi Sardanaphalus. What's the rationale of showing some of the lists in this template fully? Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • To indicate where in the template the article's link appears, i.e. to give some context and provide links to (closely) related articles. Hope that's what you mean. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Good rationale. I've got an objection, though; it breaks the lay-out of the template, and makes it less clear, I think. What do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the difference between the following (for example) is a broken layout...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. I couldn't find the right word... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

  • So far as I'm aware, it's a standard collapsible-related feature, but, if you want to disable it in this template (by commenting out the expanded parameter), I won't seek a reversion. In general, though, I'd support its use: in addition to the contextual point above, it also means templates' contents don't have to be either wholly hidden or (especially with larger/longer templates) wholly in view. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I already did remove it at Neo-Vedanta and another page, but I'll think it over again; you're rationale makes perfect sense. Thanks! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Nuclear technology[edit]

Could you please put this template back together again? Your good faith edit to break it up did more harm than good, for example, there really is no sharp distinction, as your edits suggests, between fusion and fission with respect to reactors. A case in point is Nuclear fusion-fission hybrid and the lithium 7 + neutron reaction. Moreover, with your changes, a number of articles now don't have any remnants of this template within them, whereas before they did have this template at the bottom of their article pages. A case in point is nuclear power. I strongly urge you to undo your edit. Sincerely 86.45.205.13 (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Rather than break it up, I feel I improved its organization while reducing its footprint. The distinction between fission and (putative) fusion reactors already existed. As regards articles now without (any part of) this template, I'll take a look at Nuclear power to see what you mean. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
...not so much no remnants at Nuclear power but simply no template (now added). Might this be the problem elsewhere? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust templates[edit]

Hello, Sardanaphalus. You have recently changed several Holocaust-related templates (discussion for these would be a good idea from now on). Some of them are extermination camp templates. However, the hlist in these templates are missing one extermination camp: Sajmište concentration camp. Also, it needs to clearly state that these are solely the death camps, not the concentration camps. Thanks.Hoops gza (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Done, I think. Thanks for indicating the oversight. Sajmište was also listed here as a concentration rather than death camp, so I've amended that too. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
PS This may be of interest.

Thanks. I made a few tweaks. All seems well now.Hoops gza (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Welsh Border Mounted Brigade[edit]

Sardanaphalus, I like what you have done with Template:Welsh Border Mounted Brigade, and I will apply this look and feel to the other similar Mounted Brigade templates. A couple of queries before I do so. Firtly, the first section "Regiments" does not feel right; the brigade troops were squadron- or company-sized so not regiments. I am thinking of renaming this section as | list1name = assigned | list1title = Assigned units Secondly, I think that putting "Squadrons" on separate lines is not great. I would like to change

etc. to

This will realign the squadrons with the same indentation as the squadron- or company-sized brigade troops, which was the original intention. Please let me know what you think. Hamish59 (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Happy to hear you approve. I agree re "Assigned units" rather than "Regiments", so have amended the template accordingly (and restored the "A/B/C/D Squadron" formatting, which I'd altered as the repeated "Squadron"s looked redundant at the time). I see there's a few templates within Category:Mounted Brigades of the British Army, so have you thought of using a single "metatemplate" for them all..? If you wish, I'd be happy to try to create one (and a template category that's more specific than Category:World War I navigational boxes). Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, Sardanaphalus, that looks really good. There are 14 of these templates that I created:
Template:Eastern Mounted Brigade
Template:Highland Mounted Brigade
Template:London Mounted Brigade
Template:Lowland Mounted Brigade
Template:North Midland Mounted Brigade
Template:Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Mounted Brigade
Template:South Eastern Mounted Brigade
Template:1st South Midland Mounted Brigade
Template:2nd South Midland Mounted Brigade
Template:South Wales Mounted Brigade
Template:1st South Western Mounted Brigade
Template:2nd South Western Mounted Brigade
Template:Welsh Border Mounted Brigade
Template:Yorkshire Mounted Brigade
I am not very familiar with the intricacies of template coding, so I have no idea what a "metatemplate" is. Hamish59 (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of those words whose bark is worse than its bite: it means a template used to make other templates. Ensuring you haven't missed off a brace/bracket or two (or searching for where you have) is usually what's required. I'll take a look a bit later, then report back. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be very kind of you, Sardanaphalus. I look forward to hearing back from you when you are ready. Hamish59 (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:British Army Mounted Brigade[edit]

Sardanaphalus, I have had a play, notably Template:Highland Mounted Brigade. I must say that it looks pretty good. A couple of queries.

1) The bullet points for brigade units does not look so good - inconsistent with the squadrons above. Can they be removed?
2) Related to the above; the brigade troops were named specificially as, for example, "Highland Mounted Brigade Ammunition Column", "Highland Mounted Brigade Transport and Supply Column, ASC", "Highland Mounted Brigade Field Ambulance, RAMC". Can this be put back in?
3) I suspect that I am going to have a lot of trouble with Template:London Mounted Brigade as it is very inconsistent with all the others. I will have a go first, and report back to you.
4) Can this be extended futher? For example, the 1st South Midland Mounted Brigade was later numbered as 5th Mounted Brigade with additional / different brigade troops (MG Squadron, Signal Troop, Mobile Veterinary Section, etc.). How difficult would it be to extend the meta template to allow for this? Just a question; I have not yet convinved myself that this is necessary, or even desirable.

Thank you very much for your help. Hamish59 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have come across one show-stopper. In Template:Eastern Mounted Brigade, the Ammunition Column was based in two locations: Colchester and Chelmsford. The template as it stands cannot handle this. Hamish59 (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Dwarf planet move[edit]

Dwarf planets, by definition, only exist in the Solar System, because the IAU 2006 definition explicitly only applies to our Solar System. Serendipodous 09:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks for pointing out. The previous title "List of possible dwarf planets" carried (at least, for me) the implication that dwarf planets might be found anywhere; i.e. I'd say interpreting "List of possible dwarf planets" correctly assumes the reader already has knowledge of the IAU definition. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)