Template talk:Historical American Documents

Labor

Can we add a category to historical documents called 'Labor'? Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. This template covers the specific 18th century founding documents themselves, and maybe a better title for it would add the word 'founding'. Do you have examples of documents that you are thinking of? Maybe, if they don't fit here, a new template on the topic can be created. Randy Kryn 12:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Split

As a result of the TfD from April 3, there is consensus to split the template, but since there isn't a clear decision in which sections to be split, I will initiate the discussion right below here. Toadette^Edit! 19:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

ToadetteEdit, no sections should be split, this is a full navbox entitled 'Founding documents of the United States' which follows the format of hundreds of other navboxes which cover multiple sections of various topics. Gwillhickers and others discussed this major navbox, the argument for leaving it intact achieved valid points of view, and to focus on "splitting" (especially saying there was a "strong consensus to split" which, in good faith, seems both incorrect and redefines the term "strong consensus") would add several more navboxes to quite a few articles (each of the four navboxes, for example, would be placed on the National Archives display page, three on the Journals of the Continental Congress, etc.). Toadette, your decision to close to split this navbox with little explanation, just as we are entering the 250th birthday celebrations of the United States, should, hopefully, be itself reconsidered, and reopened or "Kept" as it has been since 2010. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Kryn, ToadetteEdit — It figures that the idea of splitting has no real substance, and once again, consensus is ignoring common sense and WP:DETCON  :  "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." . If the nav-box is split, then the various sections will simply be tucked away under {{navboxes}}, which in effect gives us the same nav-boxes under one heading. in the same fashion as they are listed under one title bar at present. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Ignoring those who are refusing to accept the strong consensus we already have, this should be split into 3-4 discrete navboxes, one for the Constitution, one for the Declaration of Independence, with either one or two more for the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the Continental Association. How we split is what we need to be discussing now, not more WP:ICANTHEARYOU arguments. --woodensuperman 20:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

No one is "refusing to accept", just not agreeing with the reasoning, such that it is, as was clearly explained in plain English in plain view of your response.The existing nav-box consists of four different sections, one for each major subject regarding the founding documents. We can go ahead and split the nav-box into four separate nav-boxes, and then we can neatly place them under {{navboxes}}, as was suggested by another editor who voted to split. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We only need to bunch them if there are too many of them on a case-by-case basis, 3-4 navboxes are quite common ungrouped. --woodensuperman 21:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The four subjects/nav-boxes are about the four founding documents, subjects that all intimately related and which led to the establishment of the US Government. This is why they were contained in one nav-box to begin with, so we have every reason to group them, esp for those editors who actually research and edit those articles. i.e.Easier to navigate through founding documents, rather than having these nav-boxes scattered about in different articles as if they had nothing to do with the other. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Not all of the articles will have all four navboxes on them, per WP: BIDIRECTIONAL, some may only have one. --woodensuperman 22:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Only one person will have all four navboxes (Roger Sherman signed all four). Some will have three or one. Majority would have two. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Pinging all participants in previous discussions: @Omnis Scientia; @(Oinkers42); @Izno; @Uzume; @Frietjes; @Plastikspork BusterD; Pinguinn. Apologies if I've missed anyone. --woodensuperman 07:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• Note. {{Constitution of the United States}} already exists, and we can repurpose {{Signers of the U.S. Declaration of Independence}} for {{U.S. Declaration of Independence}} and {{Signers of the Continental Association}} for {{Continental Association}}. --woodensuperman 07:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Woodensuperman, we should add the signatories to the "Constitution" template, I would say. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Yes agreed, anything in that section from them larger document should be carried over, likewise with the other navboxes which only have the signatories, should be expanded with the relevant section from this navbox. --woodensuperman 08:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Although I guess then also {{United States Constitution signatories}} should be merged to {{Constitution of the United States}}. Oh, and {{USArticlesOfConfederationSig}} can be repurposed too. --woodensuperman 15:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Reminder, the close to split meant split, not change or edit or repurpose the navboxes. Any changes in content and removing long-time information is outside the scope of this section's discussion. Gwillhickers, please come back and note what editors are trying to do here willy-nilly, and let's make sure any changes are done in an orderly fashion with an eye on keeping the navboxes as they were without a close decision to begin making either small or widescale changes. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  There's no "willy-nilly" about it. For example, we already have a starting point at {{Signers of the Continental Association}}, we can move that over to {{Continental Association}} and split the other relevant articles out from this large navbox into that, etc. You need to be careful about WP:OWNERSHIP. --woodensuperman 15:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are going off in all directions at once. This section is about a split, not about edits. If you are interested in editing then create new sections about each individual navbox-parts and not bounce around from topic to topic in a hard-to-keep-up-with wily-nilly combination of "Let's do this and then hey, let's do this" while mixing topics up. Any changes here should be done extremely carefully and with either full agreement of page topic editors or prepare a series of RfCs for what you intend. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The whole point of the split was to remove redundancy. We don't need {{United States Constitution signatories}}, {{Constitution of the United States}}, and a third navbox comprising of a split from this section. We need to merge the three. Seems like you're trying to look for loopholes to avoid splitting and undermine the consensus. --woodensuperman 15:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This was once addressed. Once again the same name, title, event, etc can and has been mentioned more than once in an article in different sections an/or different contexts. So "redundancy" by itself in this case doesn't carry much weight when all things are considered. There was a consensus to split, anyways, but please notice that no one, including yourself, has ever addressed that point. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, this is a simple one. Add the {{United States Constitution signatories}} to {{Constitution of the United States}} and make sure there's nothing pertinent missing from the Constitution section of this one. --woodensuperman 15:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

One thing I would say though is that we probably don't need to break the signatories down state by state in the split navbox, this seems more appropriate for the article rather than use up navbox real estate. --woodensuperman 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy, they have a point. Some changes are necessary for this split to work. At the end of this, there should be four navboxes for each of the documents with all the information related to each of them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Allreet, another major editor of founding documents and American founding history should be pinged for this taffy pull. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

N O T I C E :
We are only here to decide how to split this nav-box ---not to decide for all editors at the
different related articles as to how many nav-boxes should be included at the given articles.

• Woodensuperman, you quoted WP: BIDIRECTIONAL as if it was some policy (it's a guideline) that automatically supports your contention to keep the individual nav-boxes separated in most cases, when in fact it says

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL : "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include nav-boxes, and which to include, is often suggested by WikiProjects, but is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. (emphasis added)

So we can go ahead and split the nav-boxes, but the subjects involved for each nav-box are virtual chapters of the same story,i.e.The Founding of the United States, and as such no one has offered any viable reason why they shouldn't be grouped, but again, that is a different issue.  It was suggested that we group all four under {{navboxes}}. But how many nav-boxes to include for any given article is to be determined by individually established consensus by the editors at those articles, and should not be attempted here. We are only here to establish how to split the nav-box in question, not in some attempt to determine how they are placed throughout all of Wikipedia. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We do not need to transclude the navbox if the link to the article is not included in the navbox, therefore placing all four on each page that this navbox is currently transcluded on is not only against WP:BIDIRECTIONAL, but also defeats the point of the split in the first place. --woodensuperman 16:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion, but that will be determined at the individual articles, per BIDIRECTIONAL -- .Please stay focused at the task at hand i.e.Splitting -- Gwillhickers (talk)

Once this is split, each navbox will only be transcluded on the articles where the article is mentioned. Any deviation from this in the first place can only be seen as an attempt to avoid consensus for the split. The two issues are intertwined, no matter how much you want to look for a loophole. --woodensuperman 16:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The consensus of the Tfd was split. And we should be focused on doing that as best as we could. When that is done, each of the navboxes should be placed in articles relevant to the topic. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

BIDIRECTIONAL is not a "loophole", nor is it WP:Policy.. Again, we can split the nav-box, but how many to include for each article will be determined, not by you or I alone, but by the editors at any given article.The decision to split here does not dictate policy for WP and all the editors at the given articles.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

it will be determined by the spirit of the split, and the standard convention of navbox placement, as per my comment above. Some articles will have one, some two, three or four, depending on how many navboxes each article is mentioned. Any additional navbox placement can then be discussed individually, but these tactics can only been seen in bad faith as an attempt to derail consensus and smacks of WP:ICANTHEARYOU --woodensuperman 16:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No one has attempted to "derail" the consensus to split, as if that somehow could ever happen without another RfC or some such forum, thank you, so please don't attempt to assert false accusations to overshadow your failed arguments. I've addressed every point you've (tried to) raise. If anyone is refusing to get it that would seem to be yourself. All that was asserted was that editors are allowed to include the various nav-boxes as determined by consensus at any given article, and as pointed out by BIDIRECTIONAL, something that you brought to the table. Thanks for that at least. Again, the decision to split here does not establish rigid policy for all the editors at the given articles. Once again, since the four subjects are corner-stone chapters in the story about the establishment of the founding, editors are very likely to group two or more of the nav-boxes together, as you mentioned, and as will be determined by consensus at any given article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As long as you accept that some articles will only have one or two of these navboxes on it, then we're good... --woodensuperman 18:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Please don't take this the wrong way but there is rather parental tone that seems to aimed at @Woodensuperman. At least they have given suggestions from which to work from. I don't see any viable alternatives from either of the other main contributors either since it started, just constant "I don't agree". So I can understand how that can be taken as an attempt to derail.

As I said before, the end result of this should be four seperate navboxes with all the relevant links and articles in them. We can do this in a civilized manner. Please don't get into unnecessary bickering over who is using Wikipedia policy correctly. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)