User talk:The Quill/Archive index2009/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:The Quill. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
History template
I can find nothing in your edit history for the last month that shows any conversation about history templates - all I can see is you changing them - could you please find a diff or page or location about wikipedia wide consensus, oh and by the way you and Merbabu are into WP:3RR territory at the Indonesian history template - perhaps you can spell the story out in detail with WP:AGF at http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia - thanks SatuSuro 11:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You have a fair point about the standard template - I'm all for standardization. My issue is with the image Garuda Pancasila, Coat Arms of Indonesia.svg, which only represents post independence Indonesia (or pedantically Indonesia since 1950, when it was officially adopted as the symbol of the state). How would you feel about the Historyofindonesia.png image being used instead? If we can't agree about this, can I suggest we take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia? Regards. Davidelit (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- I put image Garuda Pancasila, Coat Arms of Indonesia.svg onto the template because usually the coat of arms are but on however i have no objections to Historyofindonesia.png being used. The Quill (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- While your "wikipedia-wide" consensus for your template might be an improvement for the many lousy history templates, the Indonesia navigation box is superior to the template you've used. There is no obligation for standardisation and there is no apparent wikipedia wide consensus that I can see. --Merbabu (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- There may or may not be consensus on your template. Please show me where there is consensus that we are obligated to use your template. You may also want to consult WP:BRD. --Merbabu (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Name one way in which it is inferior. The Quill (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- How is it inferior is irrelevant. You've changed it and you cannot show me how it is superior. Please consult WP:BRD and please direct me to: "There is a consensus that this template is to always be used." --Merbabu (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Name one way in which it is inferior. The Quill (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um... if they are equal then using the standard template is fine. The Quill (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- You have not provided evidence of consensus of an obligation to use your template. It's not a hard question. The alternative is for me to change your template.--Merbabu (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Um... if they are equal then using the standard template is fine. The Quill (talk) 11:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Could you provide me a link to the template you are using? --Merbabu (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- As it says on top of Every template Template:Country history. The Quill (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi The Quill, the first group of this nav box should be named "Kingdom of Germany (843-1806) and Holy Roman Empire (912-1806)". The german monarchs were "Kings of Germany" from 843 to 912, and "Holy Roman Emperors" too from 912 to 1806.--213.156.49.140 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think you will fine that not all Holy Roman Emperors were Kings of Germany. The Quill (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not all Holy Roman Emperors were Kings of Germany: the first german Holy Roman Emperor was Otto I. Sorry but I don't speak english very well.--213.156.49.140 (talk) 22:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- No worries my friend gald we got that cleared up.