Template talk:History of Russia

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)


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 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 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)

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)

What do you think? (New Box Design)

I got inspired here after seeing German History Box and decided to do something similar for Russia. Here it is. What do you guys think?

I tried my best to include the most important historical milestones. I'm looking for suggestions of what needs to be added or removed. Zealander (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd go for a larger font-size for the links (and divider dots between) and perhaps only include the crest/coat-of-arms icons for those links that aren't indented. Some links also need sentence casing (see the Manual of Style). Otherwise, it looks like some nice work. {{Sidebar}} might help to eliminiate some of the repeated code (styling). Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please leave the template as it is. There is no need to fix what is not broken. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Added from Dobrom user: Hi guys ,thanks for template.I've used some of your ideas to update it to a better version...Thanks again.  Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom (talkcontribs) 07:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dobrom: Please don't just add your own version without discussion, then continue to WP:EDITWAR it in. For a start, if you want to discuss the presentation, don't just tack your comment onto a thread from 2008: create a new section and discuss the benefits of your complete rework as opposed to a stable version is place since early 2015. If you have taken it upon yourself to be WP:BOLD, you must follow WP:BRD. Considering that your changes have been reverted multiple times by other editors, I'd say that it should be clear that your changes are not understood or appreciated. Just for starters, the template is used on multiple articles where it ends up usurping other templates in terms of the enormity of the image... much less other issues with its presentation.

Greater Coat of Arms of the Russian Empire 1882-1917 (mass replacement)

On these two pages, published a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia. It is dated 2006. http://www.rus-deco.com/vp/JS-Lib/CustomerSites/Common/view_larger.htm?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rus-deco.com%2F510_500_csupload_20087015.jpg%3Fu%3D553230982


At the present moment is initiated his replacement to this picture without a single mistake and the author's portrayal: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire_1700x1767_pix_Igor_Barbe_2006.jpg Earlier, the authors insisted on the presence of yellow in the figure dies with his name. For VIKI author has made an exception. However, the file with a yellow bg can remain - it has more resolution. References to it are optional for connoisseurs. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_coat_of_arms_of_the_Russian_empire_IGOR_BARBE_1500x1650jpg.jpg All files are located here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Greater_Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Russian_Empire


Barbe Igor (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Errors are very much ... The work was conducted 1.5 years. Important task of work - fixing bugs and improving the drawing. Let's start ... 1. How many roses in the arms of Finland (official Blason)? Should be eight, but in the old figure of seven. 2. Where directed Halberd in the arms of Yaroslavl? (Must be directed upward, and at the old figure, it is directed downward). ........... 30. What color is the lining of the Astrakhan crown? (should be green, and figure on the old lining is red.)

Thank you!

In any case, thank you for your sincere attention to matters of heraldry. Read more references to a letter from the Chief Heraldry Master of Russia.

Best regards!

Igor Barbe Barbe Igor (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

The recent changes to this template are unwarranted and often ungrammatical. There is no need for multiple links to different sections of a single page. The template had been stable for years and now suddenly there is an edit war over sweeping, undiscussed changes that do not appear to be improvements. Please discuss changes and gain consensus before overhauling a stable template. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did try to communicate in good faith with Dobrom despite his/her somewhat uncivil missive on my talk page, suggesting that the matter should be A)discussed on this talk page, and B) that any prospective new templates should be developed in their own sandbox instead of using the live version. Either way, a 300px image is not going to be used simply because this template is used on multiple articles and will usurp other templates (see Kievan Rus' as an example of how it will crowd out other equally pertinent templates. It is also not appreciated that you did not take into account anything I had to say on the matter of other alternatives to the size of images being a problem unless they take into account the multiple device types, OS, platforms, and browsers readers use. The fact that you're developing this template to suit your specifications is pure WP:OWN.
In the meantime, CapLiber, I've also reverted your recent changes to the History of Ukraine template which is overly detailed and crufty.
Would you please both stop 'developing' long standing, consensus templates without discussing whether they even need to be developed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Dobrom also left a message regarding the template in my talk page earlier, even though the discussion should really be done on this template talk page instead. Now it is clear that he is trying to take ownership of this template, which is not allowed by the WP policy. I agree with above that a consensus should be reached before making such major changes. --Cartakes (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change to the emblem in template


Would that be possible if we can change the coat of arms to this one below? :

This here is the current Russian eagle in the Soviet era coat of arms in place of the Hammer and Sickle. It would be a nice fit to the template since the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union are part of Russian Federation's history. Any thoughts? 01:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)  Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

It's WP:OR, therefore inappropriate for this template. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2016 (UTC)