User talk:Alopex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Alopex, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 05:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
[edit] succession boxes
I have three issues which your succession boxes:
1. In many cases the editing was poor.
a. Not all information was included causing empty cells to show "empty cell"-messages such as here.
b. End commands were not place causing things to go awry, such as here.
2. This not what the template was meant for: it is meant for persons holding offices. You can't treat "liberal party" as a political office. There is no organization deciding which is the liberal party of germany. The notion that there is somekind of succession of parties, as there is succession of political office holders has no basis in science. <br< 3. I don't see the added benefit of just pointing out which parties precede and follow a particular party as largest liberal party, compared to listing all parties of a particular tradition or period. Why would you want this. I consider the succession box method worse than the template method.
I would prefer something like {{Historical Dutch political parties}} which lists all historical parties in recognized political traditions by date of foundation. Alternatively we could consider something like {{Dutch Christian Parties}} which lists parties of recognized political traditions. Your work into these books could certainly help in creating these categories.
BTW note that the order in the {{Historical_German_political_parties}} is alphabetical! The most neutral kind of listing - C mon (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1.The latest editing was poor because I did it at first only with copy and paste which was not enough (as you said). Then I had the glorious idea and I went to the version before and made copy and paste at the original text which worked correctly. So this "place causing things to go awry" is because I didn`t want to lose a lot of time, normally it worked and I am sure that you know to fix it, that is not the problem.
2."There is no organization deciding which is the liberal party of germany. " I really do not know how much you know German partys and their history. You cannot differ the socialist from the socialdemocratic parties, that is right. But you can always differ the liberal parties from the socialist or the conservative party. As well as you can say it in your for-all-template I can say in my timeline which timeline is conservative, liberal or socialist/socialdemocratic. "The notion that there is somekind of succession of parties, as there is succession of political office holders has no basis in science." Yes and no. You are right when you say that there is no predecessor in a state office or something like that, okay. But I could show you a lot of books (also political books) where there is written "Die Vorgängerparteien der SPD schlossen sich am ... zusammen" ("The predecessors of the SPD..."). <br< 3. I like this one: {{Historical Dutch political parties}} which lists all historical parties in recognized political traditions by date of foundation. But I would be very confident to have a template with only all conservative, liberal, socialist/socialdemocratic parties in each one template . In these (approx. three templates) would be the parties according their foundation. That would be a good compromise. But on the other side my box is therefore good to differ the parties in one ideology which would not do anything together. As for example there are two conservative parties in the Weimar Republic, the Zentrum and the DNVP. These parties were although there conservative position very different and they didn`t like each other, had completely other predecessors and members (Zentrum: more catholics, DNVP: more higher conservative persons). I`m not very happy when these parties are mengled together in one template as you did it with the Dutch parties whereas I considered the rightful lines also in one ideology. I hope you might understand the reasons for my sucession box. Greetings. Alopex (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I take it that we agree on a compromise in the form of an adaptation of {{Historical Dutch political parties}}.
I have take the liberty to edit the template accordingly. It is a start, I have created six party families (communism, socialism, catholicism, liberalism, conservatism and nationalism) and ordered the parties alphabetically. I hope you will work further with me on the template in order to make it better. C mon (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree when this template is in each party article of these named parties, is broadened (some partys are missing)and is not alphabetically but chronologically (foundation) ordered; to be honest this alphabetical order is a bit confusing to me. In addition there should be a group "socialist and communist" and "social democratic" instead of communist and socialist in two groups because nearly alls left parties in Germany belong(ed) to both groups but only the SPD to the socialdemocratic group. And the catholic group please beneath liberals.
- I write the German names of these party which are definitively missing. I estimate that you can a bit German when there are any questions, I try to translate it. It costs a lot of time to search all English names because I have to look it up in the German wikipedia and follow the interwiki link to the English article.
- Those parties are missing:
- Communist & Socialist (&Socialdemocratic): Donnersberg (Paulskirche), Allgemeine Deutsche Arbeiterverbrüderung (48-50 (foundation)), Spartakusgruppe Internationale (1916), Mehrheitssozialisten (1917), Spartakusbund (1918), Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands (1931)
- Liberals: Deutscher Hof, Nürnberger Hof, Westendhall (all Paulskirche), Deutscher Nationalverein (1859), Altliberale (1860), Deutsche Demokratische Volkspartei (1868), Liberale Reichspartei (1871), Liberale Vereinigung (1880), Deutsche Freisinnige Partei (1884), Freisinnige Partei, Freisinnige Vereinigung (all 1891), Nationalsozialer Verein (1902), Demokratische Vereinigung (1908), Fortschrittliche Volkspartei (1910)
- Conservatives & Nationalist (I`m sorry but when you see not only NSDAP as nationalist, conservative and nationalist cannot be divided in Germany:): Württemberger Hof, Augsburger Hof, Landsberg, Pariser Hof, Kasino, Café Milani (all Paulskirche), Deutsche Reformpartei (1833), Kreuzzeitungspartei (1848), Freikonservative (Deutsche Reichspartei) (1866), Bayerische Patriotenpartei (1868), Neukonservative, Altkonservative (all 1870), All(gemeiner) Deutscher Verband (1891), Antisemitsche (Deutsch-Soziale) Partei (1898), Deutsche Vereinigung (1908), Deutsche Vaterlandspartei (1917), Deutsch-völkische freiheitspartei (1922), Nationalsozialistische Freiheitspartei (1924), Reichspartei des deutschen Mittelstandes (1928)
- Catholics: Katholische Volkspartei Baden (1865), Christliche-Soziale Partei (1878), Badische Zentrumspartei (1888), Bayerische Volkspartei (1918)
- I hope you can now understand why your template is a bit confusing for me, there are some relevant parties not in the english wikipedia but a lot of (more) parties could be in this template (chronologically). And again: Only a box-for-all or a sucession box for only one political ideology how it is presented in your box with all ideologies would be much easier to understand rapidly. When we have finished that, we could do the parties after 1945 where I have also succession boxes. greetings Alopex (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
