Template talk:Kazakhstan topics
|WikiProject Central Asia / Kazakhstan||(Rated Template-class)|
|state = uncollapsed be removed to allow the navbox to be autocollapsed in articles like Kazakhstan. This will match the useage of the other Kazakh navigational boxes. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- support removal of line so that navbox can be autocollapsed. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Please, check the templates of ANY other country (USA, Russia, Armenia, Germany...) They are all uncollapsed!!!! The usage of this box is "SEE ALSO". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardTom (talk • contribs) 22:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Point to specific examples of those uncollapsed templates, that do not allow themselves to be collapsed. Also, read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- I do not support the collapsed state of the navbox because of the following reasons:
- 1. This navbox is used as a section "See Also". People, who read the article, may not notice the interesting details about Kazakhstan if the navbox is closed.
- 2. It's convenient to see the links directly without expanding them.
- 3. The standart state of "See Also" navboxes are uncollapsed FOR EVERY OTHER COUNTRY. Why it should be collapsed for Kazakhstan?
- 4. This navbox is not TOO big. It has a comparable size as of any other "See Also" navboxes.
- 5. What is your reasons to change the state? User talk:BernardTom(talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
BernardTom is correct that when used in the "See Also" section, such templates are not collapsed (see Argentina, Canada, Italy, Malta, New Zealand, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Vietnam). That being said, most of those templates are set to auto-collapse, and then on the "See Also" section someone adds
|state=expanded. Given that on every other page besides Kazakhstan, this template will be collapsed, it should not have
|state = uncollapsed. Otebig (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There's a space at the bottom of them template (see Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and Postage stamps and postal history of Kazakhstan for examples). Can anyone get rid of this? Otebig (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Removal of politics of Kazakhstan template
Since all the information on the Politics of Kazakhstan template is now on this template, I'm going to start removing the former from the articles to avoid duplication. It makes more sense to have one general template, plus horizontal templates are better for page layout than vertical templates. Otebig (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Anti-nuclear movement and Layout
Anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan should be included in this template, but has been twice removed:  and . Also, entries within a group should be alphabetical, for consistency and readability. Johnfos (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean by "Top topic": it is the second item as part of the last group in the template. If there is a social movement that is notable enough to have its own article then, yes, it should be included. Johnfos (talk) 18:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
What I think BernardTom is trying to say is that the Anti-Nuclear Movement in Kazakhstan falls under the broader heading "History of Kazakhstan", and more specifically "Kazakh SSR" and/or "Republic of Kazakhstan" (those are on the third line of the template, under the section "since 1456"). Since the template is for "top" topics ("Kazakh SSR"/"ROK"), movements which occurred during those time period (Jeltoqsan, for example, as well as the Anti-nuclear movement) don't go on the template as well. I'm not sure how well I explained that - does it make sense? Otebig (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, please feel free to change the position within the template. I was making a connection between culture, society, and social movement, but sure there are other ways of looking at it. Johnfos (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- What I was saying was not that the position in the template should be changed, but that, because it's a historical event, it doesn't belong on the main template at all (notice how Jeltoqsan, another notable historical movement, isn't on the template as well - they both fall under the umbrella of Kazakh SSR/Republic of Kazakhstan in the historical section). Otebig (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan is a new social movement, not an historical movement. I really don't see it fitting in the history section.
- Getting back to the layout issue, the template is too large and clearly needs to be split and group items alphabetized. In this way more items could be included in each of the templates which is split off, and readability would be improved. At present the template just looks like a big jumble.
- If the template is not split: what is the exact criterion you are using to decide whether a particular article is included or not? How is the order of items within each group being decided? Johnfos (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, remember this is a general country template, all of which are large and cover broad topics. As far as the history section goes, most country templates list only the historical periods (see Denmark, Russia, or Canada for three random examples). Templates that try to include specific historical events end up looking truly "jumbled" (like the Pakistan template, for example). The Anti-nuclear movement in Kazakhstan, though it technically still exists and has led to a current political party or two, is basically a historical event at this point (it has accomplished its main goals, the end of nuclear tests and removal of nuclear material from Kazakhstan), and as such falls under the umbrella of one of the historical periods of the template, and does not itself belong on the template.
- As for "splitting", separate templates (independent of this country template) should certainly be created (such as a "History of Kazakhstan" template, which we currently don't have). However, considering that this is a general country template, it is already well organized. The order of things (such as alphabetizing them or not) could be worked on, if people feel it's necessary, but the general structure doesn't need changes. Otebig (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)