Jump to content

User talk:Andeggs

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garzo (talk | contribs) at 19:50, 29 June 2006 (Template:Diocese). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello Andeggs, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Hyacinth 12:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. As a contributor to music related articles on Wikipedia you may be interested in reading and contributing to the current standards for music related articles on Wikipedia such as:

or creating new ones. There is also Portal:Music, which is like the front page but music exclusive. ~~~~ Hyacinth 09:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes?

In Template:Epochs of Roman Emperors, you changed "Julio-Claudian dynasty" to "Julio-Claudian_dynasty", "Year of the four emperors" to "Year_of_the_Four_Emperors", and others, why?--Panairjdde 15:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make those links go bold when one is viewing on it on that page. The reason they weren't was because "emperors" needs a capital 'E' to go the real article (rather than a redirect page). The underscore is irrelevant. Hope that makes sense Andeggs 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no problem. I just wondered why.
I would like to know your opinion on one thing. The current version of the table reads "Dominate: Constantine Dynasty | Valentinian Dynasty". My impression would be that the Dominate is actually divided into Constantiniana and Valentinian dynasties. Would it be better to write something like "Dominate (Constantinian and Valentinian dinasties)"? Best regards. --Panairjdde 18:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Panairjdde, I know next to nothing about this subject so am probably not the best person to ask! I was just fixing the template - that's how I got involved. In my humble opinion, they should not be in brackets because it seems from the articles that the Dynasties were consecutive rather than concurrent. I may well be wrong though - so go ahead and change if you think best. Andeggs 07:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epochs of Roman Emperors

Re. {{Epochs of Roman Emperors}}: I removed some of the new editing for several reasons:

  • Roman emperors after Antiquity had been cut out, e.g. "Holy Roman Emperors" have Roman Emperors in their name, + an adjective Holy → if one wants to have a navigational template that covers all Epochs of Roman Emperors, they have to be there somewhere. As there's no continuity of these Roman Emperors with those of Antiquity, I sought for a layout that put them somewhere out of the usual frame. Similarly for Byzantian Emperors after the final schism of the "Eastern" and the "Western" Roman Empire: the material link of the Byzantine Emperors with the City of Rome was from that moment reduced to zero, so, graphically out of the usual "frame" of the Roman emperors of Antiquity.
  • Many other details, e.g. "5 good emperors" is not *completely* synonymous with the Nervan-Antonian dynasty (that had more than 5 emperors, horizontal lines in the columns could indicate simultaneous developments in physically separated realms, etc...
  • Technical issues (minor, but still...), e.g.: the "align=right" instruction gave messy layout when the template was ranged in a list (as it was e.g. on Roman Emperor); automatic categorisation implied with the template (some articles using the template relied on it), etc...

In short: the "uniform layout" (which is a principle I support in general!) simply didn't work in this particular case, seen the complexities involved, so I used creativity in an attempt to give an appropriate representation. --Francis Schonken 22:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Francis - I have replied on the template's talk page. Please give your thoughts Andeggs 11:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I'm sorry, but I just can't have the ability to log in Wikipedia as well. Something strange happened that made it so that after I log in, visiting a new Wikipedia page will take several minutes as opposed to a few seconds, starting with a warning message asking "Do you wish to abort??" 66.32.237.222 21:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Note: this is User:Georgia guy not logged-in for convenience based on what has happened when it comes to logging in.)[reply]

Football AID 16 April - 22 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Football AID 23 April - 29 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

History of football (soccer) has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

RE: Query

We are different beings. :) A the 0th | talk | 23:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re E Pluribus Anthony

Hi there - thanks for your help and interest on Template_talk:Regions_of_the_world. I haven't replied to the latest comments because I suspect that ... User:A the 0th [is a] sockpuppet...
This has now been confirmed - he is a sockpuppet. Andeggs 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message, Andeggs. It's disappointing to discover User:E Pluribus Anthony is likely to've been using a sockpuppet, as, if memory serves, s/he has otherwise been constructive. As regards the template, I'm not sure if/how/when to proceed...?  Regards, David Kernow 15:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Diocese

Hi, Andeggs! I've been using Template:Diocese (and Template:Diocese NoImage) on Scottish Episcopalian dioceses, and I feel it gives pages on diocese a good common look. Last year, I overhauled Template:Infobox Language, which has a massive syntax to cope with the number of demands placed on by the varieties of languages in the world. I was wondering how ParserFunctions could be used on the template. I've come up with a trial version, which you can see at User:Garzo/projects/template. It's basically what you wrote with a few parser functions thrown in. The functions allow the same template to be used whether or not there is an image, thereby reducing the need for two separate templates. They also remove the website line if there is no website, and allow the replacement of Archdeaconries with Deaneries or Subdivisions if needed. The idea is that the same template could be used for dioceses throughout the world, whether or not they have arms images, websites or call their subdivisions archdeaconries. Please let me know what you think of it, and any suggestions you might have. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andeggs&oldid=61251793"