User talk:The Quill/Archive index2009/January

Infobox Spanish Royalty styles

Hello, I had a question about the infobox Infobox Spanish Royalty styles, how exactly does one change the coat of arms on the template so it does not show the current coa, but an older one, in my case i want to show the since that was the coa whose authority granted the title for the person i wish to use it for, since using the current coa is kind of confusing in that sense cause this title was granted a long time ago. If you think this does not matter, and the current coa should be left, then I understand that to, i was just wondering what was the best option and how to implement it. mijotoba (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends do you which a number of articles to incorpirate this image or just one? The Quill (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archbishops of Canterbury

Hello. You left no explanation when you added the words "Roman Catholic" to the pre-reformation section of the Archbishop of Canterbury template. I subsequently removed those words. You have now added them again, and again without explanation. Could you explain your reasoning please? It is clearly a hugely anachronistic use of the term - there was no pre-reformation church by that name. It also creates an enormous confusion in that the RC and Anglican churches were the same single body (the Western Patriarchate of Christendom) before the reformation. As you are aware, Anglicans acknowledge no discontinuity in succession of any sort, it being a point of principle of that Communion that no new church was founded at the reformation, but the Catholic Church continued in a state of broken relationship with the Bishop of Rome. Anglicans therefore label ALL Archbishops of Canterbury as 'Anglican' from Augustine onwards (witnessed the engraved list at the west end of Canterbury Cathedral).All of these issues can, and should, be discussed at the main 'Archbishop of Canterbury' article, but an Archbishops' succession list template is NOT the place for such discussion. Therefore the words 'Roman Catholic' are totally inappropriate and inaccurate. Perhaps you can offer some explanation for them, failing which I will again remove them. Many thanks. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 19:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about the break with Rome signified the change from Catholic church to Anglican. You seem to think you are well informed on this subject but you don't even know the single most important fact about the break. The Quill (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, what exactly are your qualifications in this area? It does seem to be you who are shaky on the facts. I spent 7 years in full time tertiary education gaining three university degrees in theology, specialising in ecclesiastical history - I don't claim to be the world's expert, but I certainly DO claim to have a good working knowledge of the subject. Are you aware that by Law in England the Anglican Church (Church of England) is the only 'Catholic Church'. The Roman Catholic Church (a term which has no place in pre-reformation discussion) is a non-conformist denomination. You have a very simplistic view of the reformation. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 10:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

With no offence inteneded you wasated seven years of your life. Tha Anglican Church is a seperate denomination and no matter what the law says (although you actaully seem to be agreeing with me)The Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Catholic Church. The Quill (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Equally, no offence is intended, but you are very slow to catch on. Of course they are separate denominations - I have spent my entire working life working for one of them, and not the other. The point is that it is wholly inaccurate to describe the pre-reformation (and pre-denominational) Church as 'Roman Catholic'. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the present day and history. It is a fundamental principle of Anglicanism that the pre-reformation Church was not the 'Roman Catholic Church'. You surely grasp the difference between the 'reformed catholic' denominations (such as Anglicanism or Nordic Lutheranism) and the protestant denominations (such as the Baptists or assorted congregational and presbyterian denominations)? Most fundamental is the fact that the protestant churches began afresh at the reformation - a deliberate policy of ending the old, and starting something new. The reformed catholic denominations equally deliberately did NOT start new churches - they broke their ties with Rome, but otherwise continued in succession from their pre-reformation existence. It is an important distinction, undermined by your mis-labeling of the ABC template. When does the Church of England date its original foundation? Look it up! The answer is 597 AD, almost a millennium before the reformation. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 09:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Templates

You unilaterally redirected the {{Bahá'í‎}} to the new template you created {{Bahá'í‎ Faith}}, and thus the new template gets included in a large number of pages. The old template had been designed through WP:CONSENSUS over many different options, and new redesign needs to be discussed before it can be used over such many pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am being bold the new template is only aesthetically different and if that is your only point then you should know that the style I designed is closer to that of standard design for templates. The Quill (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The aesthetics are in my mind a definitely poorer than the old one. The colours are washed out, and leaving it harder to navigate. Please discuss the issue, since the old template has a long-standing consensus. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

As you know, not all templates have to look like a so-called standard template. For example, the {{Islam}} template is a great example of it not being the standard template. Aesthetics are very personal and need discussion. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. One template at a time please. Anyway I am working on that problem know and all you have just proven is there is a template which is even worse than the one you are propsing. The Quill (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying that the new design is harder to use is also utter rubbish. The only differences between the new style and the old is the new is slightly wider and the colours are different - but in a way that only help emphasize the text. The Quill (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Both are quite important. Modifiy your template to allow the colours and width to be programmable, and that's another issue. As for Islam, try moving your template over the Islam page and see all the issues people will have with your current template. Discusison is needed to change consensus. That's wikipedia policy. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll give it ago and by the way the width is changeable. How hard have you looked at this template or did you just revert because it looks different? The Quill (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it. The code for the groups is nice, but the colour is not programmable, neither is the border colour, or the colour under the religion name. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also if you're going to make the template more programmable, another thing that should be made programmable, is the text colour. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglicanism

Take a look at: template:Anglicanism. Any suggestions would be welcome. -- Secisek (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:History of Nagorno-Karabakh

Hi, can you explain why you reverted my last edit[1]? Thanks. --Vacio (talk) 13:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)