Template talk:Anarchism sidebar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Template-Class)
WikiProject icon
Socrates.png Philosophy portal
This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 



Archives
Archive 1: 2005 to July 2006
Archive 2: July 2006 to August 14, 2006
Archive 3: August 14, 2006 to November 30, 2006
Archive 4: November 30, 2006 to November 15, 2007

This is the talk page for Template:Anarchism sidebar. For discussions prior to November 15, 2007, see the talk archives at right.

Contents

[edit] Makeover

I think the template needs a makeover. Look at the Communism and Maoism templates. Aren't they stylish? Aren't they sexy? We need to have a template like that. Sorry I can't really elaborate, I'm about to go out the door. Zazaban (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did a makeover of Communism template, and I think that current Anarchism template is fine as it is. What's wrong with it in your opinion? -- Vision Thing -- 20:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The main difference seems to be that this template lacks background colour - we could make the text white on a black background if that sexified matters adequately. Skomorokh incite 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That sounds good, perhaps with circle-A bullets. It's just that the current template seems a bit.. generic. Zazaban (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Minimalism doesn't turn you on? OK, I kinda think white on black, with cirle-A bullets would nice. Unless someone else has a better idea. Murderbike (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I personally like the anarchism template as-is. Minimalistic seems to work for it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Circla-A bullets will not work on this template. Look at the lay-out, most of the links are positioned next to one another, rather than above and below one another.
And, personally, I like that aspect of this template as it is.
As for the colour scheme, I would definitely like to see a change. Currently, it's just black text against white background. I'd like to see the whole template black with white text.
Perhaps while we're at it, we could replace the black Circle-A no white background with a white Circle-A on black background.
That would be a cool template.
allixpeeke (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I went ahead and made a model template here.
The Circle-A still needs to be rendered white, and I don't know how to get the show/hide toggle to change colours. But outside of that, I'm generally pleased with it. (If you think you can change the toggle colour, go ahead.) What do you all think of it (notwithstanding the need to render a white Circle-A)?
allixpeeke (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
That looks stunning Alex, hopefully Cast might be able to help with the formatting. I think some photoshopping is necessary to invert the Circle-A. скоморохъ ѧ 09:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, white on black is so fine for my eyes! Murderbike (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I can assist with formatting, bit it seems Alex has that in hand. However, I cannot immediately assist with the creation of a white circle-a, as that would require .svg skills. Being unrelated to photoshop, I lack the necessary experience. Perhaps SwitChar would be able to assist in the matter. I know he has submitted several anarchist related .svg images.
I would also suggest that perhaps the whole template need not be black. Perhaps just the banners, such as in the libertarian template. This is because formatting all of the text white prevents previously opened links from registering a different color to denote this.--Cast (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Cast,
I thought about that. I don't know if there's a way on wikipedia to set previously-visited links a different colour from not-yet-visited links, but if there is a way, I would suggest we set the previously-visited links colour to a shade of gray (preferably light gray, but not so light that it can't be distingued from the unclicked white links).
When I was formatting the page, I didn't think it looked very good with just having the banner sections black. Something about that seemed...bothersome to me, for some reason. But perhaps it was just me. Feel free to play around with my design and see for yourself what you think.
Technically, one would not need to create an .svg for the white Circle-A, since this white Circle-A would only be used on the template, and would not be used to replace the black Circle-A in all the locations it would appear. Thus, we'd only need one size for the white Circle-A, which a .jpg or .gif could easily handle. (Of course, having an .svg couldn't hurt, and I, like you, do not have .svg-making capabilities.)
Murderbike and скоморохъ,
Glad you like it! :)
Sincerely,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I designed a white Circle-A. Check it out.
Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
So will these changes also be carried over to the horizontal navigation bar? Should we remove the circled-flag in it? I don't think it would be appropriate to swap it's colors, creating a circled white flag.--Cast (talk) 03:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I quite like Allix's latest version. Anyone opposed to implementing it? Skomorokh 20:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism in India

I'm gonna post this at Portal:Anarchism as it seems more appropriate, but it doesn't seem like people pay much attention to it. But, if anyone's interested, Anarchism in India is up for deletion here, and for some pretty shoddy reasons, though the article does need some help. Murderbike (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additions

Anyone think it would too much to add Anarchist Exclusion Act to the History section? Murderbike (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

At some point we're going to have to address overpopulation, but the Anarchist Exclusion Act is a paradigm for the kind of articles that should comprise that section. Skomorokh incite 08:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] category

This template includes the category Category:Anarchism, which means that every article gets added to Category:Anarchism. That works fine for a tagging system, but not as well for wikipedia's "category" system – it ends up leaving the Category:Anarchism very difficult to read and absorb. I'm been creating subcategories for articles and that structure can be built out more, but we ultimately need to remove Category:Anarchism from the template to clean up the category. Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and done. I'd gone through the Category:Anarchism in its entirety about a month ago, redirecting articles into subcategories. However, someone came alone and undid all of that work, perhaps well intentioned, but ignorant of the purpose of subcategories. I'm going to go through the category again. In the meantime, the template is now under the anarchism task force category.--Cast (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deprecate this template?

Considering that we have the much more thorough {{Anarchism}} template now, has anyone given any thought to deprecating this template, and fully converting to the other one? SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "much more thorough"; the templates share 99% of the same content. There's a discussion on the talkpage as to which articles that template is appropriate for. I propose keeping this more prominent template on articles directly related to anarchism, where aesthetic considerations allow. Skomorokh incite 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Skomorokh. I did not create the horizontal template as a universal Anarchism navigational template. Anarchism mirrors the vertical template, and is essentially secondary to it. Further, the horizontal template carries a disadvantage which the vertical template does not suffer. The horizontal template cannot be placed in specific sections of an article, where it may be most appropriate. It will always be placed at the bottom of an article, irrespective of its relationship to the article subject. The vertical template may be arranged at the top of an article, or in a subsection according to necessity. An example is in the Emma Goldman article, in which the vertical template is appropriately placed in the Philosophy subsection. This would be impossible with the horizontal template.
I could propose other advantages the vertical template holds, but I cannot be pressed for this at the moment as I am busy. However, I think it safe to assume that these will present themselves in time. Each of these templates has a time and place for which it is most appropriate, and we should make proper use of each accordingly. --Cast (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why no info"anarchism"...

Have a look at the article Infoanarchism. Where does it mention opposition to hierarchy and authority?

This is just a stupid made up term. Just because you oppose copyright, doesn't mean you also oppose all government, capitalism etc. It just means you oppose copyright.

This isn't a school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.193.188 (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they mean anarchists who oppose copyright, as implied by the name. The anti-copyright movement has it's own article. Zazaban (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
We have a policy on not making no true scotsman judgements on particular tendencies based on our individual interpretations of what "true" anarchism is. I'm restoring the link. скоморохъ ѧ 20:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collapsable sections

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fade to black

I kinda liked the old version but I guess black is our color, eh? :) Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Most people seemed to be in favour of it (see first section above). The forces of light still have {{Anarchism}}. Skomorokh 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anarch

Sorry my edit summary got cut off, but I have restored this article. It explicitly relates to anarchism, as a linguistic and conceptual fundament of "anarchy". Please discuss here before removing. We can't simply go removing articles because they also concern ideologies we don't like. Skomorokh 12:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say they "also" concern other ideologies, it's that it doesn't concern anarchism at all:
* the article is a stub or dictionary definition
* it's an idea from a non-anarchist who claimed it as inspired by the writings of a dead anarchist
* the article doesn't say that it is (or how it could be) a "linguistic and conceptual fundament" of anarchy - it's a later development or offshoot
* It's not a common term amongst anarchists (I've never seen the term used outside of this template)
* It currently appears as the first term in "Theory" - this is really undue weight for a stub on a hardly-notable, hardly anarchist term
It can't be fundamental to anarchy if it first appeared 60-70 years later and hasn't been used in anarchist theory or practice since. As with all articles I know little about, I'm willing to be proved wrong but even without the apparent link to 3rd positionism I don't see a reason to keep it in the template.Chaikney (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
As no responses, have removed it. Chaikney (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archives have been killed

The move has broken all the links to the archives, can anyone fix that? Zazaban (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

All fixed. With the move of the main title, the move function didn't also move the various archive pages, so I used the move function to move them all over. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming Template:Anarchism footer

Hi. Would anyone object if I submitted Template:Anarchism footer for renaming to Template:Anarchism at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial proposals? Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems here. Anarchism should become plain "Anarchism", and we should probably move away from using the sidebar template altogether. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? I personally prefer the sidebar to the footer. Zazaban (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Really. Sidebars tend to clutter up article bodies (especially when multiple sidebars exist in an article), which could be put to better use displaying images and such. The trend seems to be that such link boxes are going to the bottom of pages, which honestly is where they should be, along with the "see also" links and such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I've always found them an easy, immediately accessible resource for detail on the subject. I find it makes articles look complete. Zazaban (talk) 02:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've listed the template for renaming. I'd say it's easier to create clutter, squeeze text, etc with sidebars rather than navboxes, but well-designed and thoughtfully-placed sidebars are fine. Nearly all of those I've seen relating to political ideologies seem to work. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This could have done with a lot longer discussion period than a day, as it affects hundreds (thousands?) of pages. We may have to go around correcting editors who type {{Anarchism}} expecting a sidebar to appear for months to come. the skomorokh 12:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied with it, but recall I'm also of the opinion that the sidebar template needs to eventually go away. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be a question for sidebar templates generally...a political template would be a poor choice of test case as it could end up a fractious debate. the skomorokh 19:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose adding Class struggle

It's a big issue, central to syndicalism, communism and social anarchism generally. We should add it, probably under Theory / Practice. Any objections? Chaikney (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I am Skomorokh and I approve this message. We could also use an article on class struggle anarchism. 21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
It's done (the template not the article :) Chaikney (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Cologne Blue skin

Honestly, I'm not sure how important this is. I noticed that this template does not look good in the Cologne Blue skin using my Internet Explorer browser. Some of the titles conflict with the [Show] links. This template looks good in all skins using Firefox. If you use Internet Explorer, you can see what I mean by clicking on this link. If it's important to look good across all nine skins, then editors may want to consider improving this template so that it looks good in the Cologne Blue skin.

One way to do this would be to increase the width of the template. The template used is the {{Ideology}} template. I've copied that template to my #7a sandbox and copied this template, Anarchism sidebar, to my #7 sandbox, so that I could see what width of the Ideology template was needed to make it look good in the Cologne Blue skin. Looks like "width:24em;" would do the duty. I have made no "live" changes yet, because I really have no idea how important it is for this template to look good in the Cologne Blue skin.

How important could it be?  —  Paine's Climax  10:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It could be quite important!Harrypotter (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] persons removal

I think we need to keep this list small and limited to the people who contributed most to anarchism. I have removed the follwing;
Noam Chomsky: an anarchist, but he doesn't consider himself an anarchist thinker but more of a "fellow traveller" to anarchism. He hasn't contributed much to anarchist theory.
Howard Zinn: like Chomsky, he isn't influencal in terms of anarchist thought.
Nestor Makhno: Ditto, mostly just an anarchist commander.

24.180.173.157 (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you in the cases of Howard Zinn and Chomsky. Under the same criteria i dont think Lysander Spooner deserves to be in this list as he didnt make too much of a contribution to anarchist theory or activism or movements and also he is barely known outside the US. Also it happens that American individualist anarchism is already covered with the inclusion of Benjamin Tucker, a far more influential thinker even in European individualism and of course Henry David Thoreau who kind of started anarcho-pacifism and green anarchism. The case of Nestor Makhno is that he is a very important person for anarchist history as he lead one of the biggest anarchist led revolts in history and very likely the most well known anarchist in the Russian Revolution. So i will proceed to add Makhno again.--Eduen (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

i reverted to a previous version as the additions on people were bordering on the bizzare. it even had an addition which is in the process of being deleted.--Eduen (talk) 00:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

on the additions on people proposed by |Jfeen what i can say is that most of them are recent and with only regional or local relevance, in the end relevance in the USA mostly as it is clear they have not been translated to other languages. Now of course even though some of those people are contemporary to John Zerzan, the relevance of this later person is wider and in the case of Zerzan we have the most representative theorist on the recent but with important precedents school of thought which is of course anarcho-primitivism which is already present globally. So just as you want someone like Uri Gordon for example included, there are influential authors in Spain for example with longer and more extensive body of works published such as [Amoros] or Agustín García Calvo. There are also historical regionally important people such as Manuel González Prada, Ricardo Flores Magón and theres even some people with importance in wider debates such as Volin or Rudolf Rocker who are not included and who might actually deserve to be included instead of the people you want included.--Eduen (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] anarcho-queer

Can someone add anarcho-queer to the schools of thought? (Lenerd (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Anarchism_sidebar"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox