User talk:Torontino

Welcome!

Hello, Torontino, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to Knights Templar, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

I removed your additions as they were not referenced. Please add references at the same time you add significant content. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Signing your name

Please sign "~~~~" after the end of your "talk". And remember to add an wp:edit summary, too. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:Knights Templar

Hi there. A few things regarding our interaction at said template:

I was under the impression that the papacy and its ecclesiastical jurisdiction would not use the flag of a sovereign state; it turns out I was wrong, so this should be of no issue.
However, the flags remain inappropriate. We're seeing two unsightly flags out of nowhere, unexplained (WP:WORDPRECEDENCE), and may be too small for the visually impaired to recognize. You might have also noticed that flags aren't often used in this sort of sidebars. Plus, does the expression " Order of Christ (1319)" suggest that the modern flag was used in 1319? Has it always been used since 1319? The same can be said for the other case. I suggest we simply drop the flags altogether - or adding "papacy" and "Portugal" after said orders, rather than representing them through simplistic icons. Morningstar1814 (talk) 04:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "unsightliness" - WP:TOOMANY does suggest there is such a thing ("clutter", "redundant"). In this case, the MOS itself has brought what may be considered non-neutrality and bias. My belief is that flags appear awkward in a purely text-based infobox, and can be replaced with words - but since you do not necessarily believe so, we'll probably have to simply agree to disagree.
- I'm afraid I don't really understand your bringing the whole flag section of MOS into this. My point is the usage of flags could border on the anachronistic. There's no doubt that the Holy See and the modern state of Portugal hold jurisdictions over these orders. The issue is when you go with " Order of Christ (1319)", it will leave the impression that the 1319 state of Portugal used the modern flag, which it almsot certainly didn't. The expression "Order of Christ (1319, Portugal)" might be more nuanced. Likewise, the flag of the Holy See is a visually striking statement that directly brings into mind the modern state of Vatican - while the article Supreme Order of Christ itself covers far more than that, certainly before the time when the flag comes into usage - therefore I'd favor "Supreme Order of Christ (1319, Holy See)".
- The icons only visualize the nations they represent via floating texts. This does not really go along with WP:WORDPRECEDENCE, which states that "words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags". If the "nationalities" of these two orders are indeed so important, why not use words that denote them in a more direct manner, without us having to hover our cursors over tiny icons? Morningstar1814 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves without consensus

I take issue with your move to Order of Santiago of the Sword without consensus. I left a message on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Military Order of Saint James of the Sword. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I assume you made this edit by accident. Please be more careful. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]