Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sardanaphalus (talk | contribs) at 09:14, 11 January 2015 (disambiguation link deliberate, removed older threads (to end of December 2014)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Barnstar

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Your contributions to the finer details of Wiki markup on various articles, at a rapid rate, is noticed and appreciated by others. Leep up the good work! MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you! Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Hi sardanaphalus you have some good history and it is nice thanks for doing history and making it look nice. hope we can be friends thanks jalyn.. Jlynn13 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, jalyn. If/when you can't seem to find something here, I can try to help – or direct you somewhere or to someone who should be able to help. Enjoy, Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Category:Example

Yes, I did see the message and that helped convince me that it was a test page. Categories in the main space, as this was, are for encyclopedic purposes and clearly this one did not fit that guideline as I understand it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for your response:
  1. When you say "the message", do you mean Template:Namespace example page or the talkpage post – or both?
  2. My understanding is that "main space" = article space, i.e. not including categories etc. Is this incorrect..?
  3. If Category:Example should not exist, does that mean pages such as Template:Example should be deleted..?

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Start div col listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Start div col. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Start div col redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- ] {{talk}} 15:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox company

Hi Sardanaphalus. It appears that the changes you made at Template:Infobox company caused the parameter location_country became non-functional. That parameter is used in a lot of articles. Was it intentional? If that's the case, sorry for bother you. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for this alert. It wasn't intentional but an error which I've now, I hope, corrected. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, it seems to be working fine now. Thanks for your time. Cheers. Urbanoc (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop now!

Unless you can cite a very good reason to revert my edits, you reverts have absolutely no basis in any policy, and you are the one edit warring! -- ] {{talk}} 15:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Your own user and talk pages messed up on 1024 width display

Just for interest, on my 1024 width display, the TOC on this talk page overlaps and obscures content on the left, and your user page is a real jumble. I noted you attempted to enforce hard-coded widths on the Theistic evolution page - have you done the same on your own pages, causing these illegibility issues? -- Jmc (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for passing on your observations. The ToC here will indeed overlap content if it's left expanded, while the user page has, over time, come to include/combine various page/section/line formattings as I happened to test them alone/together/etc. (It looks fine here at 1680 by 1050.) I'm puzzled, though, by the second part of your message – I don't believe I've tried to enforce anything anywhere, nor intended (or intend to try) to do so. Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't assume everyone has a 1680x1050 display! That seems unnecessarily inconsiderate of your readers. And your reinstatement of a hard-coded width on the Theistic evolution page after it had been reverted by an admin gave me the impression of an attempt to enforce. -- Jmc (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm still a bit puzzled as I don't understand why you think I'm assuming everyone has a 1680x1050 display..?

As regards Theistic evolution, it sounds like you have the edit I made today/yesterday in mind, in which case you might not be aware that it was a restorative action taken in the context of a user (User:Edokter)'s... erratic behavio/ur. (That situation is awaiting resolution<aside>cf here if intrigued</aside> so the article may yet see further related amendment.)

If, though, for the sake of smaller/mobile/etc screens, tables and table-style columns are discouraged and {{Div col}}-style columns can only be used in ways that produce overly wide or shallow columns on desktop screens, then that does seem to be a problem. Am I (hopefully) misunderstanding/missing something..?

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

You said, "It looks fine here at 1680 by 1050". I'd pointed out that it didn't look fine at 1024 px wide (to say nothing of narrower screens). My inference from that was that you approach layout with the assumption that other readers also have 1680 px wide screens (and too bad if they don't and are consequently unable to read parts of your pages).

In a wider context, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on achieving responsive layouts that enable all content to be readable no matter what the screen dimensions. -- Jmc (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I mentioned that the page looks fine here in case you were wondering whether it didn't but I hadn't sorted it out yet, or it didn't but was part of some experiment, or... (etc).

Re responsive layouts where all content is always readable regardless of screen, I don't know whether that's asking the difficult, impractical, improbable or impossible, but restricting structures as fundamental as tables, grids and columns to full-width {{Div col}}s<aside>if that's what's required</aside>seems a heavy price to pay. Might a version of Misplaced Pages somewhere between here and the mobile version be needed..? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Shall we start over?

You obviously like "Start div col", then here's my proposal:

1. I withdraw the RfD.
2. Your request a move of Template:Div col to Template:Start div col.

The outcome of the requested move discussion will determin the primary name of the template, and consequently how the template will primarily be invoked. You should know I have no preference either way; I only have a problem with the way you push your preference (using a self-created redirdct). This whole affair is why WP:RM exists in the first place. -- ] {{talk}} 14:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for posting the above. I've no particular regard for Start div col other than as an alternative name for Div col (for the reason here) and, since the template can be used by itself, it's probably best to keep "Div col" as its name. If you feel more than one alternative is too many, perhaps instances of Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf could be replaced by Template:Tnf and Template:Tnf..?

More importantly, though, do you think characterisations such as "...the way you push your preference (using a self-created redirdct)" above, or those here, for example, suggest good faith and an authentic intent to cooperate..? Before posting something, for instance, do you imagine it is by someone else and for your attention – and then, perhaps, reconsider how it's phrased..? (My first thoughts here aren't as to whether something might be taken personally, but as to what it can suggest about the sender's thinking and its origins.)

Yours, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Good faith only goes so far... and is easily abused. I can have all the faith in your intentions, but is is your actions that ultimately count. And to be frank, your actions show a degree of disregard of some core policies. Playing the good-faith card is not going to change that. I say it like it is, and I may be crude in my phrasing. But that only happens if I am not being understood, or worse, being ignored. And if that comes across as lacking good faith, then we simply have a communication probem.

Now, when you start replacing the template name with what you call an 'alternative' name, and trying to get it into the documentation, then it isn't actually alternative; you consider it the primary name. Even though your reasoning for wanting to start the name with "Start" has not convinced me, I would not oppose a move that is backed by consensus, So by all means, start a move request. But I will maintain that creating a new redirect and seeding it into articles is a non-valid method of bypassing a move procedure, and I cannot allow that. Do not take this as anything personal; one of the jobs being an admin (being responsible for technical matters) is to prevent a wild-growth in templates and their names, and it is sometimes a thankless job. So my question remains... Are you going to request a move? -- ] {{talk}} 13:07, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hint

Check the template talk page before you continue discussion with dummy edits... You may find I already started a discussion there. -- ] {{talk}} 22:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please make this clear in future edit summaries. Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Was the "Please discuss on talk page" in the edit summary really not clear enough? -- ] {{talk}} 10:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
    • To indicate that you'd started a dicussion? No. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Template editor right removed

I just noticed the ANI thread open involving you and Edokter, and I see that there still currently concerns about your template editing. There have been several similar concerns in the past, e.g.#Explanation of revert further up the page, and more looking back through your talk page history. I've removed your template editor rights until we can be reasonably sure that similar problems won't occur in the future. Please take to heart the advice given to you in the ANI thread - whether Edokter was right in his reverts or not, you could have likely avoided all of this drama by considering all the technical implications of your edits. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 10:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)