Template talk:History of Russia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See also: Wikipedia:Series templates and Wikipedia:Article series boxes policy (proposed)

Contents

[edit] 172, please stop

My format is clearly much cleaner than yours. --Cantus 22:46, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

It is not my format; it is emerging as the standard series box format. Please compare with other article series. Thanks. 172 01:12, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is hardly emerging as the standard format. Please stop. --Cantus 02:49, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I think the biggest reaction against the edits is that the bullets change the nature of the template entirely. They add way to much clutter to all the templates they are in. Let me explain my reasoning. In a list within in an article, bullets help direct the eye to the organization of topics, they scream "this is a list." But the template with vertically aligned topics separated from the main article already makes it clear (to the scanning eye) that the user is reading a list, there is absolutely no reason for bullets, especially when horizontal space matters. In addition the bullets just move the eye away from the text in this situation, detracting from the design. If you don't want the text so close to the edge, padding would be fine, negative space can often help keep the eye less confused. I'd suggest using <br/> between each line instead of using bullets. To keep organization and some spacing, ":" works fine (the indent character in wikitext). —siroχo 04:38, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

My view of the situation is similar to siroχo's. The bullets are ugly, distracting and unnecessary, and it's obvious that this is a list. I've made a new format that I hope is reasonable. Guanaco 22:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The default skin for Wikipedia is MonoBook. Please look at how the navigation and toolbox menu format is done, to your left. I'm just using the default format in Wikipedia, which I also happen to like. --Cantus 00:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] white/gray

The white, gray, white, gray, ... ping-pong is disastrous. We need a navigational element here, not distraction for the eyes. --Joy [shallot] 12:57, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Series templates.

[edit] Edit link

I've improved the format of the navbox [edit] link, but I'm still against including them at all. Why? Because:

  • The content of navboxes changes very seldom; only when articles are added, deleted, or renamed.
  • The content of navboxes isn't simple text, it's code. It usually requires some technical knowledge of HTML and/or wikitext. It's not meant for the casual Wikipedia contributor. If you know enough to edit the navbox's content, then it's easy enough for you to find the template.
  • Although article sections' [edit] links are integral to encouraging Wikipedia content contributions, navbox links are not. Thus, they constitute superfluous visual elements, and shouldn't be included.

Does anyone object to my removing the [edit] link? —Michael Z.

PS: Does anyone know how to make the edit link without the little "external link" icon next to it? —Michael Z.

[edit] Edit link

I altered the edit link for 2 different reasons.

  • The template was subst:ed because {{ed}} is being deprecated. (A bot has been moving around substing it too for thesame reason.)
  • I also moved it int the table because as it, there is no way for anybody but one actually knowing thattehse links are frequently inserted into table captions (which makes no sense as far as the markup is concerned) to know what this editink is associated to. I certainly didn't know. --Circeus 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely the reason why I reverted the changes. History of Russia is a controversial subject. The template is regularly attacked by vandals who blank it; I don't want other trolls to figure it out too. Furthermore, it is not watched by any admins, so the harm may remain unheeded for days. --Ghirla | talk 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. The template still ough to be subst:ed, or it'll stop working at all when {{ed}} is deleted.
  2. Why didn't you ask one of the 500 or so admins to watch it? I'm sure there's at least one Russian one around.
  3. If it is so commonly targetted, why leave an edit link at all? it's certainly not like it's used real frequently. (unless maybe by vendals? the irony is making my head spin here.) --Circeus 18:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to take offense. I don't think you can imagine how much foolish revert warring and crass vandalism affect Eastern European topics. With my enormous watchlist, I usually revert all those edits that seem to be controversial but made in good faith, requesting the authors to explain their position on talk. Your arguments are valid, so please make the changes you've been contemplating. Happy edits to you, Ghirla | talk 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed the link entirely. I don't really see a point in keeping it there,especially if it'sgoing to attract vandals.
Circeus 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 versions

For the record, I asked Ghirlandajo a while ago to look into what seemed to be rather sweeping changes to the template. I personally really don't like it's current aspect, but can't comment on the content. What would you think if I reformatted it into a style similar to what it was before User:Kingfish changed it? Circeus 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I was only concerned that Ghirlandajo's revert was a big one to have made without discussion, after two months and six unique editors. I personally prefer the look of the post-Kingfish version. If it looks like I'm in the minority, please feel free to reformat it. Dallyripple 15:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Circeus, I was not active in the project back then. I don't like Kingfish's revision. There is no need to list all those Russia-related topics here (e.g., "linguistics"). Italics are particularly off-putting. The old revision is not so cluttered. Furthermore, it occupies less space in the articles. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree the new template is not as aethetically pleasing, and that the topical historis are inappropriate. Looking more into it, there are very little differences between them (kingfish's version uses "khazaria" instead of "khazars" and has a few more links). I do think, however, that the Timeline and subdivisions of soviet and post-soviet Russian history links should stay. Circeus 16:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll agree to some of that. The inclusion of links to a timeline and to topical histories is pretty standard on history infoboxes. Dallyripple 20:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)