Template talk:Notable Rulers of Sumer

Sumerophile, you have changed this to a vertical side template 3 times now, please look at what it is doing to the articles, making a long margin of templates that are often much longer than the article. This is a "see also" type template that should be near the bottom of the article, not something needed to refer to at the upper right of these articles. There are plenty of examples of this type of template and they are all horizontal, centred, and underneath the text. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard template.

I have corrected a lot more than the non-standard template, which you've entirely reverted.

A centered template does not work when it is embedded in an article (i.e. History of Sumer) - it creates an unnecessary table in the midst of the article. This is why they go to one side. Also, there are "infoboxes" (to the side), and there are "navboxes" (on the bottom), which are a different format altogether, see Template:USCongress.

Templates should not be optimized for stub articles. Sumerophile (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can make your other corrections that we are not arguing about, without changing the shape of the template, I will not revert.

Centered templates work fine, I can show you numerous examples. If you are looking up an article about a Sumerian king, all other Sumerian kings are "see also" material, not something we need a handy index at the top for. Putting the template on the side makes too many empty articles an eyesore running down the empty screen. Since we seem to be in a deadlock, we should seek out some other opinions on this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so we go with correct information, and a standard template for presentable main pages. Sumerophile (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I said clearly that if you made the other corrections without changing the shape and position of the template, I would not revert. However, you have not done this and gone ahead and changed the shape and position of the template anyway, so I am still going to revert your changes because I disagree with them. I will be seeking some Third opinions to break this impasse and edit war. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You cannot revert things just because you disagree with them! Sumerophile (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have failed to show why the template should not be centred as it has always been, and there is no consensus as of yet for changing it from the way it's always been. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Accuracy and Standardization. Consensus does not mean one person's fancy. Sumerophile (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, consensus means agreement among the previously involved editors for effecting a major stylistic change from the status quo ante. You are now at 3RR, I would advise beforehand obtaining consensus of the previously involved editors or awaiting independent 3rd opinions before trying to enforce your fancy again with regard to stylistic changes such as not centering the template. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody else has weighed in here; kindly don't threaten people. You have repeatedly reverted constructive edits, and the stylistic change is to standardize with the rest of Wikipedia, and put the template where it belongs, especially on Sumer, History of Sumer and any other non-stub pages where it is embedded. Sumerophile (talk) 03:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no such rule to back up your opinion and no consensus for you to impose it, and you've been warned about persistently edit warring, so I'm going to have to report your 3RR violation... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hint: WP:3O. --B (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the "hint", if you had read the above, you would see that I have twice mentioned seeking 3O (3rd opinions) on whether this is suddenly to be made a "infobox" or not. The edit war continued anyway and I was temporarily blocked before I could type out the 3O request, even though I meticulously adhere to 3RR at all times, and bad changes like this that make the layout of many articles into an unwieldy eyesore still need to be reverted in absence of consensus. Therefore I have now made a 3rd opinion request at the wiki project. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinions on template (read all of above conversation)

Please refrain from further edit-warring and do not continue to right-justify the template; just leave it the way it always has been since November 2006, until consensus has been determined. I have already promised that if you make any other corrections to the template without uncentering, I will not revert them, but I will revert any further changes that result in uncentering, because of the sheer number of articles this is ruining. I will also abide by the consensus of other experienced editors once it has been determined one way or the other. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A third opinion was actually given on your talk page:

Is the only dispute centering? From the edit summaries, it looked like order was the main disagreement. I can give you an opinion right now on centering - it looked hideous. ;) In all seriousness, if there is a dispute beyond centering the template, I don't know enough about the issue to document the dispute well. Your block should expire in about 3.5 hours (if, after 3 hours and 23 minutes from now, you get a message that you are blocked, it is a result of an autoblock, that an admin will need to manually remove). You can make the request yourself after it expires, but please refrain from reverting the template until there are some other viewpoints offered. If there is a relevant WikiProject, you may also want to make a request for opinions there. --B (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You reverted what you were told not to. If you object to white space in stub articles, the solution is to fill the space with content, not stick centered templates in the midst of the main articles. Third opinions are great, but it seems if you disagree with them, you are going to continue revert anyway. And yes, the issue seems to be entirely on centering templates, silly as it sounds. Sumerophile (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If that were a serious "third opinion', he would not have immediately followed it with "in all seriousness". I would like someone to resolve this dispute who understands the difference between an infobox and a reference box by offering a true 3rd opinion on this page so that you can stop your incessant and time-consuming edit warring about petty matters such as this, that have the effect of turning many articles into total eyesores. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an administrator knows the difference between an infobox and a navbox, and doesn't need to have his opinions dismissed as unserious. He also asked you to refrain from reverting. Sumerophile (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I will say again that it is truly a shame that you do not try to work with me on these templates that were wisely designed by several editors including myself lomg before you showed up last week out of nowhere. I realize your account is new, but you are doing these changes unilaterally and without regard to beforehand finding out what anyone else might think, and that isn't the way we generally do things, because as you can see it usually becomes quite problematic whenever things are done that way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We can also easily ask User:B for clarification of what he meant, if you really think his private comment to me on my talkpage followed by ;) that you have reproduced here, was intended to constitute a serious '3rd opinion'. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is what Til Eulenspiegel is looking for, a collapsible navbox situated at the bottom:

With some work I can condense this into two columns. I agree that the side navbox isn't the best way to go about this. Ziusudra is swamped on the side which decreases their navigational value, and Igigi looks ridiculous. –Pomte 03:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this looks great to me, for my part... Good job! Note that (if I am not mistaken) a parameter can also be set that would allow the template to be default hidden (apart from the title bar) on any given page if anyone thinks it is taking too much room! I hope this will be agreeable to all editors concerned. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great - this is what a centered template should be. I tried to do this based on the USsenate template above, but couldn't get it to come out right.

The problem is that this template is also embedded in the main articles, so the navbox should be a separate template. ie. Notable Rulers of Sumer navbox, which can then be put on all the king stub articles. If there's a way to make columns, that would look better.

Also is there a way to change the colors on it, so that both templates can have the same color scheme so it's more apparent that the two templates are related. Sumerophile (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need nor consensus for two templates with identical information. There is no need for a right-justified navbox with this information at the top of any article. You have persisted in edit-warring and reverting other editors to your own way, rather than try to work with others, and this has contuinued for days now. Please abide by consensus and also stop repeatedly messing up the articles with this and a whole pile of extra stubs and categories. Thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't just about stub articles, and navboxes shouldn't be forked into new templates to prevent a maintenance nightmare and to reduce edit wars. They are both navboxes, there's no reason here to have two different styles for the same thing. Think about the readers' benefit when they browse across these articles. –Pomte 19:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this template is also embedded in the main articles, and it's use there is important, for a chronological overview of notable Sumerians. (It includes a few non-rulers as well, which I asterisked, but most notable Sumerians were rulers). Sticking a horizontal template in the middle of an article breaks up the article, but having it open on the side makes it a useful reference. Perhaps a more comprehensive chart of just rulers might make good sense for the king articles. Sumerophile (talk) 21:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The template as it looks right now is horrible. Personally, I'd like to revise it to the format that I created it as, but I'm looking for better options that will satisfy more people. The collapsible template seems okay, but it has a lot of empty space, and doesn't look very good IMO, but the benefit of it being collapsible is that everyone doesn't have to see it. Crispus (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying the use in "main" articles aren't important. This box should be placed at the bottom of each of them for consistency and intuition. It has plenty of navigational value there. I'll remove the empty space. –Pomte 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think an overview such as this gives is worth seeing, especially in the dynasty sections. What is horrible about it now? Sumerophile (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen in the articles, the bottom (closed) navbars were useful for including larger comprehensive lists (such as USSenate). I do think an overview should be openly visible for quick reference. Sumerophile (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

How does this imply it's not worth seeing? It's very clearly openly visible at the bottom of each article. Remember that each transcluding article is about a ruler, not the entire history, and this template links between those. The reader can see History of Sumer to get the big picture. –Pomte 22:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When you are in a larger article, such as Sumer or History of Sumer, a reader is not going to scroll to the end of the screen, to open a navbox for reference in the section they are reading; they won't even know the reference is there. Try reading through the dynasties without a overview handy. (And when a reader opens up a closed box at the bottom of the page, they expect specific and comprehensive information, rather than an overview.) Sumerophile (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

New section

Pomte, somehow your version seen just above here has a much cleaner look IMO than the two column version came out. Maybe it is just the way alternate rows are shaded differently in the above version. Not only does the version above seem to take up less space, but it also might address some of the concern about using it for a handy chronological reference by having the single column. (I do see that its potential use in helping readers sort out the overall chronology by dyanasty is a valid point, now that it has been made only today.) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No Kidding. Sumerophile (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

template clutter is a big problem on Wikipedia. Since people insist to compile giant templates, they have to be made collapsible and put at article bottoms. This is standard practice, e.g. check any country article. This isn't the place to discuss template placement in general. dab (𒁳) 12:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a nice comprehensive, non-overview, chart of Sumerian kings would be a good idea for the bottom of the kings pages. Sumerophile (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sumerophile, stop this immature behavior at once. If you do not cease this needless preference-based editing, an administrator will be notified, and this time he will be PERFECTLY clear on the situation and will remove you as a factor. Last time you got lucky, and the administrator just superfluously glanced and saw two users in an arguement, and decided to give them both little slaps on the wrist. This time, I will find an administrator who will get the in-depth picture and there won't be another whistleblower punishment. Nico (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What the ...?? Two weeks later ... now this out of the blue??? "got lucky" "remove you as a factor" "whistleblower punishment" That's a string of threats WTF????

References: WP:Civility

Sumerophile (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you gotta learn how to work the system, my friend. You really misinterpreted that last one. I was saying that Eulenspiegel was punished for blowing the whistle. Hardly a threat by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is "you got lucky." and "remove you as a factor," is certainly no threat. In fact, it just means that you'll be removed if you keep vandalizing, which is right on with wikipedia guidelines. NJMauthor (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel did not blow any whistles for wrongdoing on my part. Nor was I, or am I "vandalizing". Sumerophile (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

NJM, I do appreciate your belated support, but the issue as pertaining to this template was resolved by other editors a couple weeks ago, no need to beat a WP:DEADHORSE... If you feel you must, please use Sumerophile's talkpage instead of here... Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

NJMauthor and Til Eulenspiegel, kindly keep your vitriole to yourselves and off my talkpage and anywhere else. Sumerophile (talk) 00:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bold redirect

I've made a bold edit and redirected this template to the revised template on Rulers in the Sumerian King List. The reason I've done that is that the template Notable rulers of Sumer (T:NroS) did not have a clear scope (who's notable, who's not notable?) and mixed (most-probably) non-existing rulers only mentioned in the Sumerian King List or other literary texts with rulers who were not included in the list at all. I think that a template like Rulers in the Sumerian King List is much more concise because it has a well-defined scope (only those rulers who are included in the SKL) and can exist next to a template like Rulers of the ancient Near East, which seems to be much more complete than the older T:NroS and can be used to navigate historically attested rulers for various periods and places. --Zoeperkoe (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2021 (UTC)