User talk:GoldRingChip/Archives/2024

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 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. 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.