Template talk:History of Georgia (country)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Georgia (country) template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (country), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Georgia and Georgians on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (country)Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgia (country)Template:WikiProject Georgia (country)Georgia (country) articles

History

This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles

Abkhazian template

There should be a similar template about Abkhazia, covering the evolution of Abkhazian statedom from Kingdom of Abkhazia through Principality of Abkhazia to the Abkhazian SSR. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is now one at Template:History_of_Abkhazia. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection

Shortcuts

This template has been fully protected for a month. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be decreased or increased depending upon the resolution or non-resolution of the issues due to which protection was initially applied. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on this talk page. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Please don't forget to put this template as otherwise, administrators might not be able to keep a track of the issue. Contact me for any further administrative assistance. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 06:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the {{pp-protected}} template between a <noinclude></noinclude> markup. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Anomie ⚔ 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This is what tempalte should look like.

These are the most important articles. The ones I removed are not essential and some are a couple of sentences. It does not have to be a list of all Georgian history articles, but a survey of those the most important. I deleted the odd-looking map on top because seal is what I see being used on other country pages and its more official. This person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tanllocittis , did not like it an remove it but the page was not blocked like they block it for me. How is this fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Anomie ⚔ 15:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for improving the template

I've come to this template through my work on the article Arab Georgia and couldn't help but notice that it is in a rather unsatisfactory condition compared to similar ones for other countries. First, the repartition between headers and simple data entries is rather confusing: less headers are needed. Second, I think that as it stands, it gives too much prominence to the history of Georgian political entities: all kingdoms, principalities, and duchies that ruled parts of Georgia are listed, whereas you wouldn't find such lists in the template for German history for instance, although Germany was long divided in multiple states. I've seen that the template was the battlefield of an edit war recently, and so think it best to discuss changes here first. In any case, here's my proposal. I've reorganized the headers, kept the kingdoms and principalities, but removed the duchies, and made a few other changes. Also, for the sake of consistency with similar templates, I put the coat of arms as the image; furthermore, the ancient map now used is more of the whole Caucasus than of Georgia, and not even a name for the country can be read on it.--Susuman77 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the current template as it shows the major historical states and events in the Georgian history. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the problem is that it shows both major states and minor entities (saeristavebi were no states, even if they are listed here), and only 1 event (the 1921 invasion). I think the 2008 war might deserve inclusion, and so added it. Do you object to the new headers/data repartition, to the change of image, or only to the removal of duchies? For the 1st two, I think both readability and consistency favor the new one. --Susuman77 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support the new template as you created. As for the duchies I don't see any problem with that as well, because they presented a duchy after the Georgian kingdom's fragmentation. As for 2008 war it is included in the list of Georgian wars. As Georgia has seen as a lot of battles and wars it should be included into that page. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The duchies were never states, even in the 17th-18th centuries; they gained almost independence only during periods of civilian strife, foreign invasions, or weak royal power, but they were always, even only theoreticaly, subordinate to royal authority. The fragmentation you are referring too was of the united Kingdom into a few kingdoms and principalties, no further. You also haven't taken into account my argument about the fragmentation of Germany (or Italy, for a smaller quantity of fragmented states involved). Your point about 2008 war may be right; in any case, the list of wars is still present in my version, only at the bottom, marked as a list, to make it more clear and consistent with other country history templates. I also support most of the changes User:Chipmunkdavis made (and you reverted without explanation) to remove many unnecessary repetitions in the template. What about my points about the image, and the clarification of headers?--Susuman77 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, what about adding dates to most states and periods linked, as practiced in many other country templates? Would it be too heavy, or useful to understand better to which period each link belongs? --Susuman77 (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the duchies as you suggested. The image should stay as it shows the region well, the same kind of image is on the Greek history template where not only Greece is shown but the entire region where it actually is. So I don't support removing the current image it has now. Also this image fits well the for the historical reasons. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! OK for the image, I still think that coat of arms would be better, but I'll wait for other users to give their opinion about it. As you voiced no objections to other proposed changes, I will implement them already (headers reorganized, dates added). I removed the 2008 war following your argument. Feel free to discuss it...--Susuman77 (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes about the headers and years as it was too much of confusing. The current one will stay as it is now. I only supported your thought about the duchies. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you think are "too confusing", or which of them are. I wouldn't think adding dates is confusing, on the contrary, although you can argue against it for making the template too heavy. The headers as they stood were in my opinion rather confusing: when I first saw "Georgian Wars" in the middle of the Antiquity section, I thought it referred to some campaign of the time, whereas it actually is a list of all wars fought in Georgia, same for kings. I tried to reach some compromise with you by taking into account your opinion on the image or the inclusion of the 2008 war, but your way of reverting any change even after making no argument against them during a discussion is rather counter-productive. You cannot justify statements like "The current one will stay as it is now" with just a statement of your opinion.--Susuman77 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also remark, as we are talking about confusing presentations, that adding the dates allowed me to realize that many entries in the template were right out of chronological order, especially in the 1st sections, and to rectify it. How is that more confusing?--Susuman77 (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are not necessary. But, what do you suggest for Georgian Kings and Wars? What is the best place to put these two? On bottom of contemporary Georgia header? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no, under a header "Lists" at the bottom of the template. See similar practice in many other country history templates, from Germany to Kazakhstan with a final header "Topics" for general historical subjects not restricted to a particular period. The problem with your reverts is that it's hard to know what you are objecting to, and each revert brings a new reason. Let me try to implement a template without dates this time, but with the necessary rectifications for clarity and general chronological order.--Susuman77 (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, but still problems subsist, that I think my last version does a better job at addressing, and that your repeated reverts keep in the template.

1. the header/data repartition. There just are too many headers in your version for clarity. From the top, Colchians and Iberians are given header status, whereas they should be considered as data falling under the "Ancient Georgians" header. Similarly, Roman Georgia is an article about some aspects of the Antiquity in Georgia, and so should fall under this header rather than having its own. The next two can similarly be put, together with the more general article "Arab rule in Georgia", under a Medieval, or Early Medieval header, rather than all being headers. The Unified Kingdom is a kingdom, and can consequently be put, together with the dynasty, into a header about Georgian medieval kingdoms. Last, the article Georgia at the bottom is here to provide information about history of the country since 1991, and as such belongs to the Contemporary history header rather than in one of its own.

2. Chronological problems. From the top. The bronze age cultures (the term Age, used in your version, is not in the linked articles, and thus less adequate) are not in the right order, and Shulaveri is a Neolithic, so Prehistoric culture rather than Bronze Age. Similarly, in the lists of kingdoms, Abkhazia and Hereti are much older than the others, and still come near the end in your version; I've restored chronological order there, as well as for principalities.

3. As User:Chipmunkdavis remarked, too many redundancies of "Georgian" where it is unnecessary. Similar templates don't use the country name that much and often prefer world history periods for headers.

That sums up all the changes that I feel are strictly necessary for the template. I still feel a change of image and the inclusion of dates could help, but will defer to the better judgment of other editors. Rather than reverting those changes in their entirety again, and then re-adding some of them in your own way, I would appreciate if you could work compromise positions from them, assuming you still are opposed to it. Thanks for organising the topics header anyway!--Susuman77 (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reverting not only my last changes, but those you had agreed to, and your own ones, all the way back to March, and asking an admin to protect the page against my edit warring was not exactly what I had in mind when I asked if we could work towards compromise. I won't touch it again until other editors can come have a look at the situation. Anyone interested can see my last proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Georgia&oldid=491463391, read my arguments in its favor right above here, and share their opinion. Thanks!--Susuman77 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why were my edits reverted without any sort of rationale? CMD (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of you please resolve matters peacefully and discuss before, not after making certain changes. some of the ideas voiced here are not to be disregarded. you are trying to improve the template after all, no need to quarrel about it because unwanted results are not that hard to undo, if necessary. --Dj777cool (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite get what the dispute is about, but I know both editors involved in it are very prolific and knowledgeable. As not a big fan of templates and infoboxes, I think we should not waste our time and energy on such disputes, but rather focus on developing articles. I'd personally prefer to have individual articles on each period of Georgia's history and then list them in the template, eliminating most of other relatively "minor" entries from it. I think we should first agree on the periodization of Georgia's history (not a difficult task, imo) and then discuss the entries which best illustrate each of these periods. --Kober^Talk 06:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion reboot

In order for the dispute to be resolved peacefully, swiftly, and amicably; a few things need to be implemented and adhered to as much as possible. Firstly, GeorgianJorjadze (talk · contribs) shouldn't have reverted the template before a resolution had been reached. This isn't productive; and goes against the guidance set out at WP:PREFER. Going about the bold, revert, discuss cycle has obviously not worked here; so with that in mind the template should be reverted back to the version that was in use before this dispute took place.

Secondly, there is a standardized template in force for subjects like this, which can be found at Template:Region history. In that template, the parameters that have "data=" in them can be changed to a sub-heading that is more appropriate to the topic at hand. What those headers are to be, should be discussed peacefully with interested editors for the subject. Then, the logical way to list those new headers would be in chronological order - this would then add depiction to the reader of how events occurred, and place Georgian History into a "timeline" frame. If some editors are in doubt, and no mutual decision can be reached; then perhaps everyone should be looking at similar templates; for example Template:History of Australia, Template:History of France, Template:History of Ireland; and see how those projects have the layout and timeline of these types of template.

If that works, and a resolution is reached; then everyone is happy and we can all get back to working on articles. However, if no overall decision is reached after all options have been looked into; then the final options would be to either seek a third opinion or escalate matters to Dispute Resolution. I'll keep this page on my watchlist, to monitor proceedings, and offer assistance upon request. Good luck! Wesley☀Mouse 09:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to have a serene discussion about that! I apologize if I implemented my changes in too bold a way, and am keen to discuss each of them. Here are, in my opinion, those which are necessary to make the template coherent with the standard:

1. Better repartition of articles into headings. The template as it stands has too many headings. I suggest to restrict them to the following chronological periods: Prehistory, Bronze Age, Classical Antiquity, Early Middle Ages, Medieval Kingdoms (as the kingdom articles are as of now where information about this period can be found), 19th century and 20th century. An additional Topics heading would cover subjects that span multiple periods (lists of wars, kings...)

2. Inside the headings, respect chronological order.

3. Take out of the template the less notable political entities currently listed, such as duchies, and maybe principalities. They are all listed already in Template:Georgian statehood.

4. Avoid unnecessary repetitions, especially of the word "Georgian", as it is obvious articles listed here are related to Georgia.

Then, I would also suggest a change in image. The current historical map used is not precise enough, shows the whole Caucasus area, and given the size of the thumbnail, not even the name "Iberia" can be read. We could switch, as in many similar templates, to the coat of arms of Georgia, or simply use another historical map, where the name of Georgia would be visible, such as the one I put here.

Finally, I think the template will only be as good as the articles that it links to. Our objective could be to develop general articles about periods in Georgian history. Georgia within the Russian Empire is a very good one. I'm writing one now about Arab rule in Georgia. We still lack a general article about the fragmentation period between 1460 and 1798, which makes it necessary still to have links to the different kingdoms of the time.

Anyway, I'll be glad if we can discuss those points and reach consensus about it.--Susuman77 (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm quite a lot of areas being covered at once; which could confuse or hinder matters into a complex state of affairs. May I suggest you split things up slightly? Work on finding a mutual decision on the context of headings and what should be listed within them first. Then when an agreement has reached on that, you can at least incorporate them into the template so that it doesn't disrupt things too long. Then you can look into the image side of things afterwards. Dispute over which images should and shouldn't be used aren't overly important at this stage of the discussion. Wesley☀Mouse 10:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with that. Let's not talk about the image for now and focus on the style clean-up (points 1 to 4 in my comment above).--Susuman77 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it also be possible for someone to highlight to me, which version of the template was in use before this dispute kicked-off; so that the template can be restored to that version per guidelines at WP:PREFER. Thanks Wesley☀Mouse 10:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The version in use now is the one that was in use before the dispute: GeorgianJorjadze was following the guidelines in his last revert. Whatever my dispute with him may be, he acted right there, I guess.--Susuman77 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This template is well fit and it should stay as it is now. This is the template which was before user Susuman (Personal attack removed), came and changed the template into the ridiculous manner. The current version looks well, is well listed with reasonable and historical image above whichi also should stay as it is. User Susuman came and changed everything around without consensus. I don't support his changes at all. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgianJorjadze, may I remind you to stay civil in this discussion, and avoid making personal attacks towards other users, such as "Susuman who claims as he's French (which I highly doubt)". Comments like that are personal attacks, and can be sanctioned with a block. Wesley☀Mouse 10:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wesley, user Susuman came and changed the template upside down without any consensus reached and now he complains about the changes I've made. I've made these changes because he clearly edit warred with me when the consensus was not reached about the template look. As for my position, the current template should stay as it is now. Everything's in well fit. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have to disagree with your view on who started the edit war. If any user disagrees with content whether it be on an article or template - the correct procedure is to start a discussion about it on the talk page; more so in the cases of templates. By altering the template into a style of your personal liking without discussing it first, is the start of a provoked edit war. You have been on Wikipedia long enough now to know the ins and outs of edit warring, and have received many such cautions/warnings about that. WP:PREFER indicates that the previous version should be restored until an overall decision is reached by everyone involved. Failure to comply with Wikipedia policies can result in matters being escalated further, and possible sanctions being imposed on your account.

On a different note, I have review the template in question, and have found many sections that are duplicating themselves, and could do with a general tidy-up to rectify those issues. Wesley☀Mouse 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that GeorgianJorjadze still refuses to provide concrete reasons why the style of the template as it is now satisfactory, address my criticisms and suggestions. I am obviously not the only editor here who thinks some clean-up is needed. I think he did a great job in the past adding data into the template, but that it needs to be organized in a better way. I think reaching an agreement over that is more relevant here than discussions of my nationality.--Susuman77 (talk) 11:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the template in its current status, and have noticed a few sections that could do with a review, and possible tidy-up.
There are 3 sections covering Colchians:

Bronze Age (Colchian Age)
Colchians
Ancient Georgia (Kingdom of Colchis)

Would it not be plausible for these to be grouped under a simple "Colchian" header, rather than being scattered under several?

There are 3 sections covering Iberians:

Iberians
Ancient Georgia (Kingdom of Iberia)
Principate of Iberia

Would it not be plausible for these to be grouped under a simple "Iberian" header, rather than being scattered under several?

There are 2 sections covering Abkhazia:

Unified Georgian Kingdom (Kingdom of Abkhazia)
Royal Principalities (Principality of Abkhazia)

Would it not be plausible for these to be grouped under a simple "Abkhazia" header, rather than being scattered under several?

There are several sections covering Royalty:

Georgian Kings
Bagrationi Royal Dynasty
Royal Principalities
Royal Duchies

Would it not be better to group them all together under "Monarchy of Georgia"?

If a solution can be found on those areas first, then perhaps we will be heading in the right direction to resolving this issue swiftly. Wesley☀Mouse 11:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input to the discussion! This is a delicate matter, and I think your ideas can help. However, not all of them seem practical, and I'd rather keep a chronological framework. At one point yesterday, I put forward a version with dates attached (which I don't insist on, as it is rather heavy to the eye) here, which shows that entities with similar names can belong to totally different periods, which is not clear in the version in use now. Early medieval Abkhazian Kingdom and pre-modern Principality of Abkhazia have little in common. On the other hand, a header "Monarchy of Georgia" would make perfect sense. I also agree that there are too many Iberian and Colchian links. Still, the ancient Kingdom of Iberia and the medieval Principate are 2 different states, the first belongs to the same period, and I think heading, as Roman Georgia, while the second coexisted most with Arab rule... On the other hand, I don't think Colchians deserve a link, as the article Colchis is much more detailed and present the Colchians.--Susuman77 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say that yesterday, GeorgianJorjadze had agreed to the removal of duchies from the templates, as not significant enough. Here is a new proposition integrating those of your suggestions which I think are best to implement, together with my own rectifications of chronology. The main problem I see with it is the number of entries under the "Monarchy" heading; anyway, we still lack a general article about this period, so I fear it cannot be avoided as of now. Also, maybe just take the principalities out too?--Susuman77 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new template definitely looks much better than the current one; it at least has a header system which makes sense. I think topics should probably go near the top though, as they are overview articles of the whole history. Would adding dates be useful? Currently there's just and endless list of various entities, especially in Medieval Monarchy, which don't appear to be in any sort of order. (Taking the principalities would help solve this too.) CMD (talk) 12:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For the topics, I put them at the bottom as it seems current practice in similar country history templates. I tried putting dates in earlier here, but it looked rather heavy to me; maybe you'll think otherwise. Anyway, it allowed me to put all those entities in chronological order (roughly, as many are overlapping), and they are still in that order on this version here. I'm still not sure about removing the principalities now; I definitely put on my to-do list to write an article about Georgian history from 1460 to the Russian annexation, when political fragmentation was at its worst, which would conveniently replace all those links. Meanwhile, we could leave them or not, depending on what the consensus seems to be...--Susuman77 (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as though cooperation has finally restored - well done! Do you still require me to observe in the background, or am I free to wander back into my hectic hole of organising travel to my next London 2012 volunteer event? Wesley☀Mouse 13:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to wander away, and thanks again for your benevolent help! Last question only, if you allow me: do you think we can consider there is consensus in favor of those changes we discussed here (as both you, me, and Chipmunkdavis seem to support them), and consequently should I implement my last template proposed, or should I wait for a counter-proposal by GeorgianJorjadze or someone else? I don't master the delicate etiquette of editing perfectly yet.--Susuman77 (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think 3 people showing favour is quite a consensus, only a minority agreement. There are others involved too, which could still tilt the "consensus" balance the other way. And even if a consensus has been reached, still doesn't mean the agreed version is set in stone. Wikipedia and everything within it (articles/templates) are known to go through periods of evolution. So even if an agreement is reached now, doesn't mean a reopening of future discussion over the "agreed version" cannot be done. If everyone is OK with the new format, then be bold and make the changes. If someone comes along and reverts those changes, then re-engage in discussion to find new solutions. Wesley☀Mouse 14:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'll wait for other opinions then before going ahead, and will of course always be ready to reopen discussion after that. --Susuman77 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good. On that note then, I shall wish you all good luck in resolving this dispute. And just in case, I'll keep this talk page on my watchlist for one month, and invisibly check up on proceedings (commenting if necessary). Wesley☀Mouse 14:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proposed template is MUCH better than the existing one (which seems to have ignored the standards worked out on other country history templates). For the 20th-century I think there needs to be mention of Abkhazia and probably also Adjaria. "Roman Georgia" is the wrong title for that article - "Roman Colchis and Iberia" would be more correct. There seems to be a gap with nothing at all about the period of Turkish or Persian rule, and the 19th-century section is a bit empty (but I don't know what articles exist that could be added). Dates (if they are known with some accuracy) could be placed so that they are visible as mouseovers rather than having them clutter the visible infobox text. Meowy 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Nice idea about the dates, I'll look that up. When you say there needs to be mention of Abkhazia, and possibly Adjara, in the 20th century, what are you referring to? Adding a link to Abkhaz ASSR, the 1992-1993 war, or simply the Abkhazia article? Each of those could potentially be controversial, and there seems to be consensus to not list any particular war, but simply have the List of Wars linked in the template. Roman Georgia should be discussed there rather than here: I tend to think that this title is convenient, but we can debate it. Regarding Persian/Turkish domination period, actually, a large part of the Monarchy articles refer to the kingdoms that existed under Turkish or Persian suzerainty after the breakdown of the medieval united kingdom , so there is not so much of a gap. I agree however that we need a more general article about the period (1460-1800) and/or about Turkish and Persian rule. I am writing now a similiar article about the period of Arab rule; when it's finished, I'll try to work on this period of Georgian history. As for the 19th century, I think the current article is pretty good, and don't see any one more specific that could be useful here (maybe an article about the annexation itself could be written, but it doesn't exist yet).--Susuman77 (talk) 07:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any way a mouseover date system would work, and it wouldn't fix the appearance of the template at any rate. We could just include dates in the headers. We already have 19th and 20th century, bracketed dates on the others wouldn't hurt. CMD (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my date as mouseovers idea doesn't work :( - I think that the text that appears as a mousover always has to be the actual article title. The long list of entities in the Medieval Monarchy section seems confusing because taken together they cover a substantial time period, with sometimes overlapping time-periods for each entity and sometimes not. So maybe a century date should be added opposite each entity. The biggest improvement of this template over the current one is the removal of titles like "Prehistoric Georgia" and "Bronze Age of Georgia". Meowy 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Na, the biggest improvement is that the headers are actually headers! The current one has these weird streaks of what are apparently headers but obviously aren't, like "Georgia" on the very bottom. Why don't we divide the medieval section up somehow? Or remove some? Are all those entries critical to Georgian history? I also think we should combine the 19th and 20th centuries. Small sections and they naturally go together (Russia and all that). I've edited the template here to make the entry titles close to the titles of the articles they lead to. Changes to specific article names should be discussed at those articles. CMD (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes in entry titles indeed make sense. I've gone ahead and removed the less significant medieval monarchies from the template here; they are all listed in Template:Georgian statehood anyway, and I changed the series to History of Georgia. What do you think?--Susuman77 (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much smoother. If it was possible to have them separated by dots horizontally it would make the template more compact, but that's not that important at the moment. Can you think of anything else major missing or that needs to be changes?(talk)

I wouldn't know how to do those dot lines... As for me, I'm satisfied with the changes we covered in this discussion. If no opposition is voiced, I guess I can replace the template soon enough.--Susuman77 (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the current or this new template here I've edited. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for joining back the discussion. However, I have to confess that I don't find that your new proposed template solves the problems that multiple users have agreed exist in the current version.

There's progress on the header/data repartition, but still too many headers, including some that should not be (like "Georgia" at the end). We explained already on this talk page how this is not consistent with the manuals of style.
Chronological order is not respected inside the headers, and entries are still classified in the wrong section (Roman Georgia in Early Medieval, Shulaveri in Bronze Age...)
Redundancy between this template and others: all the kingdoms, principalities and duchies are already on Template:Georgian statehood and consequently not all are needed here. Similarly, we already list Colchians and Iberians at Template:Ancient Georgians and Template:Georgians. Here, a single link to Colchis and Iberia is enough; from those articles, you can go further to the peoples' article.
Unnecessary use of "Georgian" in a template where it is obvious that we are talking about Georgia.

Please read the discussion and understand the arguments in favor of some changes in this template. If you oppose any of them, it would be more constructive to say which ones and why than to propose a new template that doesn't make many substantial changes, and even goes away from compromise in some ways (you had agreed that duchies were not needed, and here they are anew!).--Susuman77 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-edited some points there. Principalities and duchies should be presented as the duchies are not included in Georgian statehood template. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, sorry, I was really sure I had seen them there. Why not put them there anyway? Per your logic, we could take out the principalities from here, but not the duchies. Putting both on the specific template would keep this one from being clogged by all those minor articles. Any other comments on the rest?--Susuman77 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Principalities are very important so putting them out from the history template would be wrong, as well as duchies which had their role in history as well. What do you mean in the rest? I think the most of the changes are well fit for everyone, isn't it? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the rest of the problems I listed right here in my 17:40 comment. If you take the pain to read them, compare in detail your proposal to my last one just above, read comments by other users, maybe follow the links to the articles to check, for instance, the chronology of each one, you'll understand why your template version may not be well fit for everyone...--Susuman77 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said I don't support your version at all. You took everything out from the template so you don't have my support in this case. Kingdoms, Principalities and Duchies should be present into the template. Only in this case I may agree with your version of the template. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So because you don't like one aspect of my proposal (taking some links out), you cannot discuss the other changes I suggest (headers, chronology, etc, etc)?? I don't ask for support, I ask that the talk page be a place to discuss improving the templates, by proposing rational solutions to a series of problems. Refusing to discuss particular proposals because of one of them is rather disruptive. If it is the inclusion of all monarchies that matters to you, and you actually agree with the rest, you should say so: then we can already improve the template by implementing those changes and leave the principalities and duchies in it for now, as removing them is not yet consensual.--Susuman77 (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgianJorjadze, if you don't mention reasons, you don't provide anything to discuss. Effectively your comment is simple stonewalling. Would you care to explain the "why" behind your ideas? CMD (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes that remain to be debated

As in the last discussion, GeorgianJorjadze actually objected to only one aspect of the proposed changes, and did not answer other problems where consensus between all other participants in the discussion had been achieved, I implemented the uncontested changes. There remains only one question to be solved: should all minor states or sub-state entities in the medieval history of Georgia be linked in this template (principalities and duchies)? For reasons I've explained above (a specific template exists for them, it clogs the template here), I think they should be removed. I should mention that at the beginning of this dispute, GeorgianJorjadze obviously agreed with the removal of duchies from the list, as he made the change himself (see this change at my suggestion. His position seems to have changed, but with no constructive approach to the debate. I hope we can reach consensus on this point too, if every interested user comes forward with possible, reasoned, solutions.--Susuman77 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To move forward, I have created a List of historical states of Georgia, similar to ones existing for Germany and Italy, nation-states with a similar history of fragmentation. It lists major and minor entities (it's still incomplete, feel free to contribute to it), and I've added a link to it at the bottom of this template, as for kings, wars, etc. I think it should help bring about consensus to delete minor entities from this template.--Susuman77 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a related note, I discovered the existence of 2 similar templates at Template:Georgian statehood and Template:Statehood of Georgia. I nominated the first for deletion, as it is much less used, on pages where the other's also present, and is a big sidebar that just cannot be used on pages where for instance, this template here is also present. You're welcome to all join discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Georgian_statehood.--Susuman77 (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GeorgianJorjadze seems to have accepted most of those changes, but has made some of his own without discussing it here first. I reverted most of it, as they haven't been discussed and contradict both style guidelines and consensus. To address them one by one:

Shulaveri-Shomu culture is a Neolithic culture, so belongs to Prehistory, not Bronze Age.
Similarly, Diauehi ended in the 8th cent. BC at the latest, so does not belong to Classical Antiquity but to Bronze Age.
Roman Georgia, on the other hand, is very classical, so belongs in this header rather than forming one of its own (which would also go against style guidelines).
Hereti is a kingdom contemporary to the Kingdom of Abkhazia (9th-10th century), so, if this minor state belongs here at all, it should be with the other links of that period (K. of Abkhazia, Tao-Klarjeti...).
Last, removing the list of states without any reason given or prior discussion of it on this talk page just doesn't help. Please join the discussion here about the way this list can help dealing with the large number of minor states currently listed instead of blindly reverting.

Shortly: effecting changes, especially when they involve removing information, without explaining or discussing them, is nothing else than disruptive editing.--Susuman77 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The template now I like it or not seems to be somehow normal. Colchis, Iberia and Diauhi should be mentioned as Kingdoms as they were so I've edited them. Though I am thinking about Roman Rule in place of Roman Georgia. Or Roman Georgia is better? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you're wrong to think of the template in terms of "I like it or not". You need to spend more time reading the arguments put forward by other users instead of only relying on your personal taste: even though you put a lot of input in this template, you don't own it. Articles have their current names for a reason, and this template is not the place to change them: if you think some of those names are wrong, go ahead to those articles' pages and make your point there - if you are right, it will be much more productive, and more people will have a chance to discuss it. Meanwhile, names in the templates should be those of the articles they link to, unless they're too long or there's ambiguity. Also, per WP:LOWERCASE, names in titles and links should not be written with a capital at the beginning: it is culture, dynasty, rule. I'm sorry to have to repeat that once again, and hope that for once, you will read those arguments, and not blindly revert any corrections made to your favorite template before thinking. Thanks!--Susuman77 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Georgia is the article title. Without good reason, we should probably follow that. CMD (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning message

I've left User:GeorgianJorjadze the following message on his talk page. Given that he regularly blanks it, I figured I'd better copy it here, as it relates to this template and the changes he keeps making to it, and he can as well answer the issues on this talk page:

GeorgianJorjadze, your last edits to the template are disruptive.

To quote that policy, in case you are just ignorant of it:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
Does not engage in consensus building:
- repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

You were the one who asked for discussion to be opened on the template's talk page. Now, you are the one who makes changes without any discussion, and doesn't answer our requests to explain your edits.

To give you concrete examples:

the official manual of style explains the use of lower/upper-case at WP:LOWERCASE. You keep correcting names in violation of this guideline (rule=>Rule, dynasty=>Dynasty, etc.). If the articles are named this way, there is a reason for it, and there is no use trying to change the style in the templates.
more generally, using for the link the name of the article linked is the most obvious policy, unless reasons specific to the template can be given. If you think articles are wrongly named, discuss possible changes there, not on the template.
lastly, adding Kartlos in this template makes no sense. This is a mythological, not an historical figure, as the article itself makes clear. Wikipedia doesn't list Hellen in Template:History of Greece, and for good reasons.

Please take all that into account, and revert your last changes, or at least don't revert the next editor who will do so. Otherwise, I'll be forced to notify admins per WP:DDE. One admin that I asked for advice already advised this course of action (User talk:Drmies#Problem with Template:History of Georgia). Thanks!--Susuman77 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Georgia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template Updated

Hello. I've just updated the template to a better one with better functionality with collapsible lists, light colours which looks functional and way more better than it was in the past. But user @Frietjes: is removing all those changes what I've done for making the template more functional. He/She is engaged in edit war and reverts all my changes back and makes the template back to the quasi mode as it was back then. Frietjes, please explain yourself and first discuss and suggest what is your problem with the template I've made and why do you engage into edit war? GeorgianJorjadze 23:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the recent undiscussed style changes. Please feel free to discuss here, but it appears these changes are not inline with the format used by other History of Country templates, so any deviations should really be discussed first. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand why my updated template is being reverted back by user Frietjes. The format is way better than it was in the past. And is this only about Georgian history template? There are many history templates like that e.g. History of Japan, Iran, China etc. My updated version is perfectly functional with better look and better functionality. I am not interested waging into edit wars and I am for here to contribute with others as well but my updated version has nothing to be critical about. GeorgianJorjadze 12:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

let's see, it's about 4000 bytes larger, harder to read, uses non-standard colouring, uses deprecated html, doesn't use LUA. Indeed, other than you like it, what is better about your version? Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

4000 bytes larger? And that is your reason to revert back my updated template? GeorgianJorjadze 15:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

since you weren't able to read my entire list, here are the other reasons from my comment: harder to read, uses non-standard colouring, uses deprecated html, doesn't use LUA. sorry if you feel you WP:OWN the template, but it appears the standard styling provided by {{country history}} is the accepted version. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about these templates? Template:History of Iran, Template:History of China etc. ? Aren't they with non-standard colouring, aren't they harder to read? or how many bytes are they? GeorgianJorjadze 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes they are, and they fail wp:accessibility guidelines on colour contrast. they should be fixed as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

see Template talk:History of China#Sidebar with infoboxes version and Template talk:History of Iran#Sidebar with infoboxes version. it appears others have noticed the deprecated code. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they are almost the same. they have same structure and colours. But you seem to have problems with only Georgian history template or what? I'll change the template to that style and would you like it then? GeorgianJorjadze 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no, they should all match {{country history}} as close as possible. not sure where you came to the conclusion that I "have problems with only Georgian history template". have you seen my edit history? Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking you again. Does Chinese and Iranian history templates match {{country history}}? Why don't you edit those templates then? I have nothing about those two and if you ask me they look good and needs no change but why don't you edit them but only edit out only Georgian one in this case? GeorgianJorjadze 18:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Chinese and Iranian history templates match {{country history}}? then why not request a change to {{country history}} if you feel it that is the superior design? or do you think that Georgia is the same as China and Iran, but not the same as most other countries? Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question please. Why is it that you change Georgian template but Iranian and Chinese templates don't? GeorgianJorjadze 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that two entirely different templates need to be updated to the standard is not a reason to change this template to use a non-standard format. discussions for changing other templates would happen on the talk pages of the other templates, which is exactly what is happening. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: the fact that no one is fixing those two templates means that there is NOTHING wrong with those templates and they are working fine and same should be for Georgian template and the changes I've made yesterday. GeorgianJorjadze 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the fact that two entirely different templates need to be updated to the standard is not a reason to change this template to use a non-standard format. discussions for changing other templates would happen on the talk pages of the other templates, which is exactly what is happening. if you wish to beat this dead horse, then try to answer the following questions (1) why does this template need to use a format which is different than the format used by most other countries? (2) if the format you have propose is superior, why have you not proposed a change to {{region history}} so all articles can benefit from this superior design? Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: No one says here that my updated template is superior in comparison to others. Every country's history is different and unique in their own way and so is Georgian history. Wiki is for contributing to the knowledge and awareness and there are many exceptions on wiki with the templates, its colours, formats etc. Why do you reject individualism? or what is wrong with the Chinese or Iranian history templates that are not "standard templates" as you want them to be? Every country has its own unique qualities and templates can be changed if it is orineted on better knowledge and better quality of things here. Is it that hard to understand? GeorgianJorjadze 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you change other than the colours? — Lfdder (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lfdder: I've improved the template to this. Just added საქართველოს ისტორია in small letters which fit well with the template. GeorgianJorjadze 20:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current version looks pretty good. We should try to keep with the style used by the Region history template if possible. It's too bad that template doesn't support collapsible groups. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for using the default sidebar width

I believe we should use the default sidebar width for multiple reasons

a narrow width causes problems with the show/hide links overlapping the section title text (see this screenshot)
when the box is stacked near another infobox or sidebar of a different width, this causes a ragged right appearance
the ragged right problem can cause the prose text to overlap the sidebar if the boxes are stacked in the wrong order

thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Thanks for explanation. Jaqeli 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]