This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ancient Rome military sidebar template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Since this template is now used across more than a dozen articles, please prporse suggestions for improvements to this template on this talk page before making any changes. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am going to revert the edit of this template to remove the link to the Classis Britannica - it is too insignificant a topic to be linked to at this level. The aim of the template is to provide links only to very common or broad articles, which then contain links in term to more specific articles. It is not practical to list every fleet and every legion individually, but note that for legions there is a "list of legions" page. For the classes, there is " Roman Navy" linked to from the template and we could add a link to a "list of fleets" page or similar from the template if you wished, and if you thought it deserved a separate page from Roman Navy. The template is now used on quite a few Roman military pages and I want to stop it growing out of control with hundreds of unmanageable links. Hope this revert is OK! Please respond on my talk page or the template talk page with any further comments of questions. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A particular user seems to believe I am attempting to cause an offense of some sort by changing the calendar standardization from BC/AD to BCE/CE, as so illustrated in a harassing message sent to me, as well as his "nice try" message under his reversion of the template. I can understand the backlash this sort of change could have and I'll kindly back down from making this sort oh-so radical change, but what is the issue with changing the calendar standardization? Common Era is readily and widely accepted by scholars, and hardly any new works are released that do not know use this unbiased system of calendar notation. I stand by my change, but will not get into a nonsense editing war over the matter. I only ask that consistency and uniformality be used in all aspects. I also ask that "AD" notation be used correctly, namely before the date (as in AD 2006) and not after, which is, incidentally, how BC and the BCE/CE notations are used... Any support for a change to the Common Era standardization notation would be appreciated, but I have no qualms with using the Christian calendar.-- SOCL 02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[ This change] seems to swap the image for a lower quality, blurry one.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ancient Rome military sidebar template. |
|
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
|
Since this template is now used across more than a dozen articles, please prporse suggestions for improvements to this template on this talk page before making any changes. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 21:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I am going to revert the edit of this template to remove the link to the Classis Britannica - it is too insignificant a topic to be linked to at this level. The aim of the template is to provide links only to very common or broad articles, which then contain links in term to more specific articles. It is not practical to list every fleet and every legion individually, but note that for legions there is a "list of legions" page. For the classes, there is " Roman Navy" linked to from the template and we could add a link to a "list of fleets" page or similar from the template if you wished, and if you thought it deserved a separate page from Roman Navy. The template is now used on quite a few Roman military pages and I want to stop it growing out of control with hundreds of unmanageable links. Hope this revert is OK! Please respond on my talk page or the template talk page with any further comments of questions. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
A particular user seems to believe I am attempting to cause an offense of some sort by changing the calendar standardization from BC/AD to BCE/CE, as so illustrated in a harassing message sent to me, as well as his "nice try" message under his reversion of the template. I can understand the backlash this sort of change could have and I'll kindly back down from making this sort oh-so radical change, but what is the issue with changing the calendar standardization? Common Era is readily and widely accepted by scholars, and hardly any new works are released that do not know use this unbiased system of calendar notation. I stand by my change, but will not get into a nonsense editing war over the matter. I only ask that consistency and uniformality be used in all aspects. I also ask that "AD" notation be used correctly, namely before the date (as in AD 2006) and not after, which is, incidentally, how BC and the BCE/CE notations are used... Any support for a change to the Common Era standardization notation would be appreciated, but I have no qualms with using the Christian calendar.-- SOCL 02:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
[ This change] seems to swap the image for a lower quality, blurry one.