Jump to content

User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2024

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Linter errors

User:Bruce1ee & User:Jonesey95 — Thank you for fixing the linter errors and for your patience.

I actually have turned on the syntax highlighter, but apparently I still miss the errors. I think that the highlighter is not as compatible or functional as I need it to be, although reviewing mw:User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter#Known issues I can not figure out where the problem lies. When I open an italics (via double-apostrophe) the highlighting sometimes does not continue (in both Mac Firefox and Mac Safari), therefore I can not see the error.

I tend to make frequent small edits instead of one infrequent large edit, so maybe more opportunities have led to more errors. I will try to be more diligent. —GoldRingChip 12:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the syntax highlighter, you can also see if there are any lint errors on a page by clicking "Page information" in the left side bar and scrolling to the bottom. You can also add a "lintHint" button to the top right corner of each page by following the instructions at User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint. —Bruce1eetalk 14:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a good start, thanks. I've now installed the linthint button, but it is mainspace-only, I think. —GoldRingChip 15:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
To extend it to all namespaces, have a look at User:PerfektesChaos/js/lintHint#Configuration by JavaScript. Add the four lines of js code shown to your common.js (in that order), but set "myLintHints.rooms" to "*" (star) – that enables LintHint for all namespaces. —Bruce1eetalk 15:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

oh hey there

I guess I will stop bombarding you with thanks; you aren't a new editor that needs praise for good referencing. I just saw a series of gnomish reference edits that I liked at French Third Republic, that's all. Stuff that matters when you go to actually try to verify a reference. Appreciate you. Elinruby (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Amhara people page

Hi, can you help solve the Debate talk page issue on the page of the Amhara people? There is a user there called Socialwave597 that not matter how much evidences sources he is getting he is just not willing to accept non. Look like he controlling everything that is edited. And he is deleting stuff that don’t sooth his agenda/narrative 2A02:6680:1108:D0A3:B442:17D5:435D:ABA (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Marquess of Donegall family tree

Hello again.

What is the reason you have taken the family tree out of the Marquess of Donegall article and put it in template {{Marquess of Donegall family tree}}?

Are you going to put unrelated people in the tree?

Are you going to transclude it from more articles? HandsomeFella (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Should future editors want to insert the family tree in articles about the individuals and also should future editors want to find and format it in ways similar to other peerage family trees. Thank you for reaching out to me; cheers. —GoldRingChip 12:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello once again.

I'm sorry, but adding in-law trees, all middle names, and all subsidiary titles in every box – like you did for the Marquess of Bristol article – isn't making things clearer. On the contrary, the end result is that it's harder to get a clear overview, and that defies the very purpose of the chart.

I appreciate that you put a lot of work into this, and I fully understand that you are frustrated by my reverts (btw, thank you for self-reverting after you reverted my revert; as you know, it's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRD).

Your latest addition though – of the see-also link to your template – gave me an idea. You could actually create separate articles covering the relationships between noble families instead of templates that are not going to be used anyway – after all they're not navboxes, they're convenience templates.

You could start by creating an article called "Relationship between the marquesses of Bristol and the earls of St Albans", or "Relationship between the Hervey family and Jermyn family", or something similar. Start with a lede, then a (very) short summary of both families (in separate sections and minimizing duplicative info), then add (most of) the content of your template. But I really think you should dial down a bit on the middle names at least. Subsidiary titles also don't have to be in every box, maybe only for people that have a new or additional title created for them.

Also, you probably don't need all of both trees, concentrate on where they connect, and maybe one or two generations before and after. Create separate links in the tree to the other two ("main") articles, similar to the ones in the Earl of Bessborough article, section Relationship with other Ponsonby families, e.g.: "For descendants, see Marquess of Bristol" or "For further detail, see Marquess of Bristol".

Add appropriate sources and categories (some new category might need to be created, like Category:Relationships between noble families.

Finally, add a link to the new article to the "See also" section of both the Marquess of Bristol and the Earl of St Albans articles (the latter of which is now dominated by the tree).

Start out with one article (maybe as a draft), and see if it "sticks".

Good luck.

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The D in WP:BRD means, as you know, "Discuss". I may be wrong, but I think it's upon the reverted part – you – to start the discussion, not me. Anyway, now it's started.

Expanded HMSO

Firstly, why? and secondly, most of those it was Her Majesty's not His, so your expansions are anachronistic. And thirdly, you only need to link at first mention. DuncanHill (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

US House elections

Where are you getting your numbers for pages like this: 1827 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia? Wowzers122 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

PowerBook 100 under FA Review

I have nominated PowerBook 100 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox Anglo-Spanish wars

I have readded the link to "Anglo-Spanish War (disambiguation)". Contrary to what you think, this does not create a circular link on the disambiguation page or creates other misery. In fact it is a trick used to fool the maintenance bots to think that the template does not link to a disambiguation page in its title, while it is doing that. But without the redirect, the maintenance bots will start shouting that is is an incorrect link that needs to be fixed. So please, do not remove it again. The Banner talk 15:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the information. I did not think it created a circular link; that was a different editor. My motivation was to link to a more direct article, but you and the other editors have correctly noted that there is no more direct article exists, so the diambiguation page is as good as it gets. —GoldRingChip 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Lala Rukh

Dear GoldRingChip,

I hope you are well. I would like to make some changes to the Wikipedia page 'Lala Rukh (Activist)'. I work at the Estate of Lala Rukh to manage the late artist and activist's archives. our goal is to make information on her more accessible. I have edited the text on the already existing page 'Lala Rukh (Activist)'. I would like to correct the title of the page to either just Lala Rukh or to Lala Rukh (Artist and Activist) as that is more accurate. Along with that, I also want to include pictures from her archives in her biography, which I am unable to do currently. If you could grant me more rights and/or administrative rights, I would like to make these necessary changes.

Thank You,

Estateoflalarukh Estateoflalarukh (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Union University

I see many, many years ago you maybe worked on Union University in New York. It is hard to track down exactly how it "exists" although I understand that Union College and Albany Law School are part of it. But I'm not sure if it is legally incorporated or what exactly. Jjazz76 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire

Considering the Byzantine Empire page. So many issues there in the whole article.

Starting: Nomenclature

It says "The inhabitants of the empire, now generally termed Byzantines, thought of themselves as Romans (Romaioi). Their Islamic neighbours similarly called their empire the "land of the Romans" (Bilād al-Rūm), but the people of medieval Western Europe preferred to call them "Greeks" (Graeci), due to having a contested legacy to Roman identity and to associate negative connotations from ancient Latin literature.[1]"

The Greek speaking population of "Eastern Rome" indeed used the term Romaioi to refer to themselves. Now...the mention in the article of how others called them is a bit suspicious especially the way that its done. The article run to mention how the neighbouring islamic states called them and after that it mentions (as a bad opposition) how the Western Europeans called them. The Muslims called them Romans (so they are the "right ones") while Western Europeans who called them Greeks did it on purpose and were the "bad ones".

What about the Eastern Europeans then, or the Northern Europeans. Throughout the medieval period in their accounts we have also the sole use of the term Greeks and Greece by them also...Rus, Vikings, even Slavs. What about them? Did have the Vikings who could go and work as mercenaries in the Empire "negative contested feelings" towards them and called the state as Greece? Or did the Rus which supposedly took their religion from them after they chose carefully which doctrine is more "right" in order to adopt it, had also "contested interests and roman identity" that's why they always called them Greeks?

What about the Serbian or Bulgarian medieval Czars who would have used the term Greeks as interchangeable with the term Roman...we see in other Wikipedia articles how Bulgarians or Serbian lords when they conquered lands from the Byzantine Empire they included proudly in their imperial titles the terms "Emperors of the Bulgarians and Greeks" or "Serbians and Greeks" etc...why did they do this...apparently they did not used the term Greece as in any way to take away from the Empire its legacy and legal rights to the imperium.

So the whole case of the nomenclature is written in an away that screams that the avoidance of the word Greece and Greeks is the most important.

The article continues:

"After the empire's fall, early modern scholars referred to the empire by many names, including the "Empire of Constantinople", the "Empire of the Greeks", the "Eastern Empire", the "Late Empire", the "Low Empire", and the "Roman Empire".[3]"

That's totally absurd and ahistorical. In all medieval texts or inscriptions (as in the case of Vikings in Scandinavia) throughout Europe there's mainly one way people referred to the empire: Greece. Its not about how we like it today or to examine every now and then why they did it and always to try to avoid this fact cause "it takes away the roman character" and all those notions. When anyone would have to read any medieval text thats the word will find the Eastern Romans and their stat. That's the historical term used centuries before the Empire fell and it's not a term created after it was fallen.

The whole article creates a feeling that the identity of the Eastern Romans was something so nuanced and flex, when it wasn't for much of its history...but very much associated with their language and religion.

And lastly, I find it extremely inappropriate to end the article of the Byzantine Empire having the paragraph:

"Following the conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453, Sultan Mehmed II took the title "Kaysar-i Rûm" (the Ottoman Turkish equivalent of Caesar of Rome), since he was determined to make the Ottoman Empire the heir of the Eastern Roman Empire.[444]"

That's not relevant of the empire...the empire ended officially with the fall of Constantinople and Morea or even after the fall of Trebizond. What was the Ottoman Sultans view is irrelevant and should not be used as in the last paragraph kinda implying that the Ottomans continued its state legacy. That's too much a modern trop that is ridiculous. VanMars (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

September Massacres

Thanks for your recent and hard work on September Massacres.Taksen (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2024&oldid=1248612848"