READ THIS FIRST:
User Page | Talk Pages | Toolset | To do | Bibliography | sandbox | sb2 | sb3 | sb4 | sb5 | sb6 |
Because of Wiki: Risk disclaimer, this is my advice on quick-moving events.
- Wiki is a historical encyclopedia.
- Wiki is not a newspaper: Wikipedia is not a news source; it is not a good source for "Breaking News".
- Wiki: There is no deadline: Editors get no points for making an early edit and there is no added clout here for being first.
- Wiki: No original research: Editors don't need to add something just because they think or even "know" it's going to happen.
- Wiki: Ownership of content: Even early edits are open to other editors making drastic changes.
- Wiki: Summary style and Wiki: Writing better articles#Be concise: Avoid unnecessary formalism and excessive details.
Thank you. —GoldRingChip
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article User talk:GoldRingChip, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.