User talk:The Quill

Welcome!

Hello The Quill! Welcome to Wikiproject Christianity! Thank you for joining. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 03:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC) Getting Started General • Task for You Wikiproject Talk Page • Templates Useful Links Project Category List of Christian Topics Christianity Portal Miscellaneous Featured Articles • Good Articles Did You Know? • Work Groups Anabaptist • Core Topics • Indian Christianity Iglesia ni Cristo • Jesus • Syriac Christianity Projects Article Requests • Destubbing Campaign Assessment • Articles Needing Clean-up Peer Review • Adopted Topics Similar WikiProjects Anglicanism • Bible • Calvinism Roman Catholicism • Lutheranism

Cardinal Infobox

Hello, I see you have created a new Cardinal Infobox. Would it be possible for you to change the colour of the box from purple (a bishop's colour) to the red of the cardinals? Its not major but is more aesthetically pleasing. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure I can change the colour to the red of cardinals if you show me what it is. I would like to point out though I'm not actually the creator so I can't take all the credit for the template although as you pointed out I did restyle it recently. Its always nice to have constructive feedback on my work, so Thanks! The Quill (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I also note in the infobox there is an Other section. In the case of Cardinal O'Brien you put his previous post in this section, however it reads like the section means he holds the position in tandem with his Archbishopric. Can it be changed to Previous Position or just removed?Gavin Scott (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed this problem as well. I had meant to fix it earlier but forgot too. It is designed to show the posistions held both before and after their most imprtant posistion held which due to design faults is what must be selected. I can't seem to find a word that describes this secenario though and any suggestions you have would be greatly appreiciated. Once again it is not my template as I did not create it I have meraly tried to adapt and improve it although as you can see this doesn't always happen. The Quill (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Its the red that you would have seen in the Infobox cardinalbiog2, the one you changed. Gavin Scott (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that this particular template was deleted as it was no longer in usage. Is the same red used on temlpate:Infobox Catholic Cardinal? The Quill (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I have declined the speedy deletion of those two templates because they do not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. I suggest that if you want them deleted, you submit them to Templates for deletion. —Travis^talk 19:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that they do forfill the forsaid requirments. The two templates come under CSD T3; Templates which are duplicates of, hard-coded instances of, or an inferior alternative to, OtherTemplate. The Quill (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct about that, however they need to be tagged with {{db-t3}} rather than the generic {{delete}}. I stand corrected. Note that db-t3 has parameters and should be enclosed with <noinclude> and </noinclude>. Cheers —Travis^talk 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject History!

Welcome to WikiProject History! We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to history. Now that you're a member you might want to drop by one of our Working Groups. It is also recommended that you watchlist our talk page as well. Working Groups at WikiProject History: Assessment · Collaboration · Review · Outreach · Task forces

WP Hist Redesign

... overlaps on my monitor/browser. I was gonna send you a screen capture so you could see what I mean, but you don't have email enabled. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the WP History talk pae please leave comments there. Also that is just a fault that happens now and again on all wikipedia templates all you have to do is refresh the page. 09:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, refreshing has nothing to do with it. It's page layout versus monitor size/browser type. You seem a bit knowledgeable about templates for someone who has been around only a week  ;-) Good luck. Ling.Nut (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work

The Saint's Star Award for hard work and diligence on the Christianity WikiProject ...I hereby award The Quill for working on Christianity related infoboxes and templates. Keep it up and happy editing -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 12:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox popestyles

Your well-intended changes created some havoc in several pope pages, as the new size and dimensions create ugly spaces on top of page. Please correct (revert) this unanticipated consequence.

Second point, The strong purple color does contrasts with pictures. The previous color as neutral and clearly better. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Please be careful in the future before changing well-established templates signficantly where many articles are affected. I don't know what you did exactly, but the problem is apparent in Pope Pius XII (see the intro spacing). Kindly fix this at your earliest convenience. Savidan 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that many of you are concerned about the new template but I think you will find that this problem was always around. I experimented by reverting both popestyles and the new infobox for popes and the spaces were still there. It has nothing to do with the templates it is merely becasue when people wtick the infobox popestyles underneath the infobox pope, whatever version it may be you get a massive sapce. The Quill (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:History of England

Hi, you reverted my recent changes to the template, asserting that they were incorrect. The changes are in fact correct - I linked to the relevant articles. The term "United Kingdom" as used today is short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and before that after the act of union in 1801, it included all of Ireland. Can you explain why you believe the edits are incorrect? I'll watch this page for a reply. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit becasue once 1707 act of union took place England ceases to exist as an (offical) country. As such any changes that happen to it from that point onwards are actullly part of the UK and not England. The Quill (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. England did not cease to exist from 1707 onwards, and the template is not about whether it is an official (whatever that means) country or not. The United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It is still a country. And part of it's history is that is became part of a union in 1707, and became part of a different union in 1801, and a different one again in 1927. Using your logic, there should be no entries after 1707 when England ceased to exist. I await your reply. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no entries after 1707 when England ceased to exist. England became part of a union in 1707, and became part of a different union in 1801 (on this much we can agree) however in 1927 part of that union broke of in the form of the Republic of Ireland this did not in anyway affect England merely the union. Anyway I am not going to get into a argument with you as I can sense that for some reason you have an immense amount of furstruation within you. The Quill (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be civil -- no personal comments please. What you are saying doesn't make sense and doesn't stack up. Using your logic, England ceased to exist in 1707 - if that's the case there shouldn't be an entry for 1801, but there is. Your assertion that England ceased to exist is also incorrect. I have reverted your edit, your reasoning doesn't stack up. --Bardcom (talk) 10:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I've copied this to the template Talk page - it's probably more appropriate to continue any further discussions there. --Bardcom (talk) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On a completely different topic

Hi, I don't have knowledge of the subject area. I noticed purely by coincidence that you made the changes immediately preceding the change I reverted. Could you check this anon IP edits please? I've reverted one based on the way that they switched the word Cardinal around, but I don't know enough about the others. Thanks ... --Bardcom (talk) 16:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I dont actually follow what you have written here could I please request that you try to rephrase the above statement. The Quill (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apologies. I was looking at "Recent Changes" and I noticed that an anon IP address made some edits to a number of articles related to Justin Francis Rigali. It looked like vandalism to me, and I reverted. I then checked what the IP user had editted recently, and there were a lot of other edits, but it wasn't easy to determine if the edits were good, or vandalism. I then noticed that you had editted the Justin Francis Rigali article before the anon IP address, so I thought you would be ideally placed to review the other edits made by the anon IP 86.42.152.22. Apologies if you're not. You can click on the "this anon IP edits please" text above to see the edits made. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Images and licenses and things

It might seem reasonable to revert the replacement of a good image with a worse one, but Wikipedia can only use free images, or fair-use ones when there is no free alternative. Even though the second penny image is worse, it is free, so we use that. Just in case you're tempted to be looking for coins - always good to illustrate medieval rulers - please be aware that even though photos of old paintings are nearly always in the public domain (Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. refers), pictures of old coins are usually not because coins are 3d objects. A pain in the neck.

While I'm here, regarding the {{Infobox British Royalty}} template, this is supposed to be for Wikipedia:WikiProject British Royalty use, i.e. from George I onwards. It really shouldn't appear on earlier rulers as it includes far too many fields which cannot be filled in. It's silly enough for it to be on James III of Scotland, but it is worse yet for it to be used on Alfred the Great. {{Infobox Monarch}} has as much info as can usually be found, and even for that half of it can't be filled in for Alfred the Great or Harold Godwinson. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)