User talk:KuatofKDY/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

End box -> End

Hi there:

I'm just curious: what was your motivation in moving Template:end box to Template:end? If you don't mind, I'll check back here for your response.

— DLJessup (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

DLJessup, I have been doing these templates for years and, after merging the Template:Start box with Template:Succession box, and creating a new style with all of those in the Template:s-start, I felt it would simplify things further by having Template:end be a quicker way of typing end box. I figure that the only reason for having the end box title was in case someone created an end template for another use, but I figure using it to end CSS tables is probably the most common use for the template. As of now, Template:end box still redirects to Template:end and I have no problems with them both acting in the same function if you want to recreate Template:end box with the same code. I just was trying to make things easier since a lot of people who edit on here don't now how to properly use the code.

— Whaleyland 04:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't want to recreate Template:end box with the old code. I was a little confused about why you created a "Template:end" without creating a matching "Tempate:start", and I did have some concern about the fact that you were creating a generic "end" instead of "end whatever". But, as you point out, many, many table templates which might have differing start templates all use essentially the same end template, so why not just name it "Template:end"? It makes sense to me now, and it didn't before, and so I'm glad I asked. <g>

— DLJessup (talk) 05:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Rollback

I did a rollback of your changes to the successionn template, since it was spreading multiple boxes horizontally across the page. I didn' take time to analyze your code, and apoligize for any inconvenience, but it caused a lot of articles to look bad. Lou I 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Bagrationi

Thanks for the rewrite, but frankly you're wasting your time unless you're interested in spending the next year or so fighting with Levzur. Good luck. Isomorphic 10:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer not to think of myself as being on any "side" per se. I came into conflict with Levzur for the simple reason that what he said did not agree with what was written in any of the books I've looked at. Incidentally, I do read Cyrillic, but Georgian isn't written in that alphabet. They have their own alphabet, or rather three of them. See Georgian language if you're interested. Isomorphic 00:33, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you want to decrease the excessive use of Georgian script in the article, I suggest doing it in an edit that doesn't change anything to do with the family's origins. Levzur will revert the whole thing as long as it contains anything disagreeing with his historical views. Isomorphic 02:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ack. You didn't actually have to restore his version yourself... Isomorphic 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances

I think we are converging on a version of Petronila of Aragon we can both live with, but see my question at Talk:Petronila_of_Aragon#Extenuating_circumstances. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, changed it to something less guilt-ridden. I was trying to look for an encyclopedia term but instead chose a wrong term. My fault. Hope it looks better now and that everything is cool. I just like emphasising the person for which the article is written and place everything else in relation to that person.

–Whaleyland 08:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Succession boxes

The current syntax (see Template talk:Succession box) does not wikify years within the succession box. Choess 19:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't phrase that very well. I just meant that the years are not wikified (either automatically or manually) in the example under "Current Syntax". IIRC, I wikified the years on some of my early edits and got reverted. I don't particularly object to wikifying years, but it is a change from the current style and should probably be discussed on the talk page first. (We could probably use a short style guide on the use of succession boxes, PeerNavboxes, etc at some point.) Choess 20:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, is your overall plan to use your new templates to phase out the current succession boxes entirely? They're obviously quite useful for some of the pathological cases I've perpetrated (René I of Naples comes to mind), but there's a definite loss in brevity in exchange for the flexibility, and I'm a little concerned about that. Choess 20:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK, that's fine then. I noticed in one of your examples, you split Castile and Leon; those should probably be in the same box, really. See previous discussion on the use of the boxes. Choess 21:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

House of Wettin

Hi, please use the standard term House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Also, Victoria was considered part of the House of Hanover. Thanks Arniep 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

House boxes

I'm afraid I don't really like the current format: I don't see the point of restating the birthdate, and the placement over the succession box seems very strange. (Some — many, even — of the individuals to whom these would apply don't have succession boxes anyway). Templates like Template:Direct Capetians and Template:Philippine House perform a similar function, and it might be best to emulate them. Choess 20:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

User name

I am curious- did you take your user name from the Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy in the Star Wars Expanded Universe? --Maru (talk) Contribs 19:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

royal house box

great work on the royal house box. One issue though: on the Spanish one on Juan Carlos's page you replaced Alfonso XIII's link with the Count de Barcelona, (aka Juan III). Firstly under Naming Conventions WP does not use 'regnal names' for people who never reigned. Secondly the box it replaced lists succession from monarch to monarch, not head of the royal house. So either the box should list Alfonso XIII, or if it lists the previous non-reigning head of the royal house, then a separate boxes needs to be created to link monarchs. As the Juan III entry clashes with the NC I've replaced it by A XIII.

If you intend the box to link to past heads of the royal house then we'll need another box to link monarch to monarch. Slán. FearÉIREANN 20:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Template howto:S-start

Hi. Template howto:S-start is in the article namespace, but it sure looks like it's something that belongs in some other namespace. Can I ask you to move it to a more sensible home, and CSD-tag the resulting redirect. Thanks for your help. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Succession & dates

I don't know where you've been probing, but I've been moving fairly extensively through English and French nobility, and they uniformly have year-only dates, not interwikied. I am inclined to prefer this style; as John Kenney said, the succession box should be a summary, not a complete recapitulation of the article. And the dates should already be above in the article and interwikied there; if not, the solution should be to add them to the running text. So I'd favor sticking to the year-only, not interwikied form, and switching non-conforming boxes over only as time and happenstance permit. Choess 17:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds fine. There's no urgent need to bring all the existing content inline; that can happen as it gets edited. Thanks for your fine work on these succession boxes. Choess 06:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

template protection

Hi - I'm protecting {{S-ttl}}. Making repeated minor edits to a heavily-used template is a bad thing, since it causes heavy load on the servers for each change. I suggest you experimentally make any changes you want in the sandbox, then when you have a version that works properly propose it on its talk page before making the final change. That way it'll keep Wikipedia's servers from potentially crashing! Grutness...wha? 00:36, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Um. It was me who requested protection from Grutness for S-ttl, which Grutness did (thanks!). My motivation was that the template is used in about 14,000 articles and thus makes a fine vandal target. Editing it will not crash the servers but the database could be possibly locked for seconds I estimate if S-ttl is changed. See also WP:AUM. I see from the history that your serial changes are finished, so it may not be that hot anymore as Grutness may sound above :-). Thanks to all and take it easy! Greetings, – Adrian | Talk 00:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

actually, changes to heavy-use templates can crash the servers, though it is pretty rare. Grutness...wha?

Redirect

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an article, and removing them is considered vandalism. If you oppose the deletion of an article, you may comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. . You redirected this page, even though the AfD isn't over. This is forbidden. ComputerJoe 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)