User talk:The Quill/Archive index2008/August

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 and . Cheers — Travis talk  21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

WikiProject History
Your actions on the above page are, at best, of extremely dubious justification. So far as I can tell, no one explicitly agreed to your proposed formatting when you proposed it. Since then, two editors, myself included, have on the talk page specifically indicated they prefer the older formatting. On this basis, your most recent in a series of unilateral revisions to impose your own tastes on the project page would seem, I believe, to most people to both be contrary to WP:CONSENSUS, which I very strongly suggest you read, potentially a violation of WP:VANDALISM, and almost certainly a violation of WP:OWN. Given the fact of the three, I am reverting your recent unilateral changes. If you wish your chosen version to be in place, then I suggest that you consult others, obtain consensus, and then make the changes. Consider, this, if you wish, a formal warning to cease such conduct immediately. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you will find that a consens was reaached which has agreed to keeping the edit I made. The Quill (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, actually, you won't. I did review the page. There were no parties who explicitly agreed to your proposal, although two people have since expressed disagreement. You appear to be developing a tendency toward dictating things based on your own opinions and beliefs. This would be a very bad habit to get into, particularly for such a new editor. I very strongly urge you to seek and obtain a clear consensus before acting in such a way again. John Carter (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered by ShepBot because you are a member of the WikiProject. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  on 04:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Christianity WikiProject Newsletter - July 2008
This Newsletter was automatically delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of [country] templates
Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of [country] templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list.


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ja'far al-Sadiq
Hey bro, I was wondering why you changed the standard Twelve Imams template for Ja'far al-Sadiq? -- Enzuru 21:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Created Template following standard religous infobox style, I see is there a rule regarding how we have to run these templates? So far, no administrator has had an issue with how we've done it. We've stuck with the color theme of other Twelver information, as well as put a list on the end. It's a unique kind of template and it's been very helpful so far even for me as an editor. -- Enzuru 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I changed the template becasue i thought people might want a template which followed a standard design. The Quill (talk) 08:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Patriarch
What are you doing here? You are not, as your edit says "restoring [the] microformat, but damaging it, and removing its documentation. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 15:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox President styles
I'm not really sure what the point of this template is, but I've reverted your edits which added it to Bill Clinton, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush. It seems rather pointless, and is only used on one article. WP:TFD might be the answer. - auburn pilot   talk  21:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Judaism Newsletter
This newsletter was automatically delivered because you are a member of one or more Judaism related WikiProjects. If you would like to opt out of future mailings, please remove your name from this list. As always, please direct all questions, comments, requests, barnstars, offers of help, and angry all-caps anti-semitic rants to my talk page. Thanks, and have a great month. L'Aquatique [ approves | this | message  ] 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)