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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco 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.MoroccoWikipedia:WikiProject MoroccoTemplate:WikiProject MoroccoMorocco
Please alter the color scheme of this template. As it stands, small pink text on an intense red background is unreadable.—Perceval22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the changes you've made (what they are and why)? I like that you've made the sections collapsible, but why the color change? I think the old style with the "History of Morocco" on top and "This article is part of a series" below was more readable (your "part of a series" bit is really small, and it seems to make the header look cluttered). And I'm not sure what else has been changed. -- Irn (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE There is no reason to put these colours and to make sections collapsing. The layout is really bad and the colours are absolutely not fine - Omar-Toons (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsibility is the main purpose. In many articles this template goes from top to bottom, and make it non readable
I think there is good reason for the collapsibility (the template currently takes up a rather inordinate amount of space and, in some articles, the template is longer than the entire article). However, I think that's the only thing I would like to see changed. I don't have a problem with the current colors, and I think it looks better with just "History of Morocco" up top. -- Irn (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NO, NO and NO Please quit making changes without consensus: We said that a template with collapsed lists based on the current one is more appropriate, not your version with current colors...
You can ask for some enhancement on Template talk:Region history if you want. The current template is based on the same model than the one used on practically all WP "Region history" templates, and you can't replace it just because you "don't like it".
I don't understand, where is the disagreement here? The only difference, that I can see, between your version and the one you reverted is collapsible lists. Is it the collapsibility that you disapprove of?
Although the majority of country history templates seem to be non-collapsed, there is no definite format, Sidebar with collapsible Lists template parameters can be added to any vertical template.
--Tachfin (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bad layout, an ugly font police and a hundred-times-better border.
The same template with collapsible lists should be fine, but an as-ugly template, no thanks.
As discussed before, since the consensus seems to be that we have to include collapsible lists to the current template, not to make a "tinkered" template with a bad layout and bad colors, I propose this template to replace the old one.
Note that I merged two sections since they have the same title, making the reader a little bit lost.
Btw, I'm quoting:
I like that you've made the sections collapsible, but why the color change? I think the old style with the "History of Morocco" on top and "This article is part of a series" below was more readable -- Irn (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think there is good reason for the collapsibility (...) However, I think that's the only thing I would like to see changed. -- Irn (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Since these users, who gave their opinion, seem to agree that we just need to put collapsible lists, not to change the whole template, I'm editing the template to make it more appropriate, and especially, with a better layout.
Omar-Toons (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this is your great layout!!! you have a taste for shit my friend! since it collapse your template is accepted. i don't mind about other things - Dzlinker (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well layout looks alright. What I was trying to fix is that Show doesn't mix with the title, that's why I changed fonts. It's good that you merged those section but still there is some non-historical material in there: Imamat of Sous, Figuig, Draa and Kingdom of Marrakesh just link to those places' articles, some refocusing would be needed. --Tachfin (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but as long as Bokpasa is adding non-encyclopedic material in articles (cf: Kingdom od Fez), we can not do anything...
I was thinking about writing an article for each "viceroyalty" of Morocco as they existed since the Marinid era: Fez, Marrakech, Sijilmassa/Tafilalet and Souss, and maybe an article for each part which wasn't always under Moroccan rule: the Pachalik of Tombouctou, Chenguitt, Trarza, Tlemcen and so on... that should be fine, I think.
the first is by far the finnest. menus are well sized, text is a beauty, colors are simple. and every thing goes well. i'm reinstalling it - Dzlinker (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more worried about the content than the esthetics, which I prefer, in these kind of subjects, to be as simple and standardized as possible. The previous merge of the two subheadings was pertinent. I'll have crack at improving that later--Tachfin (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree, but lets set the form, and then take care of content. in the second proposal the text are irreversibly bolded, some links doesn't work and centering text make it merge with the show hide button. to say this 2nd template is kk - Dzlinker (talk) 00:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the "form"?
The fact is that you are trying to impose "your" template despite the fact that there is a standardized "History of" template model.
I reverted the template to its 8 aug. version since there is no consensus, as we see, about which changes are to make.
Also, please avoid personal attacks as you did before.
Because we are talking about the History of Morocco, not countries that existed near of it. There is no historical continuity between this political entity and the rest of Morocco, while there is a continuity between different dynasties and different viceroyalties that constituted Morocco since the 8th century.
Also, Bokpasa, please use a single account instead of two accounts on the same Wiki.
Dzlinker, please avoid imposing your version as you did here with a dubious diff summary "let's wait until u get a support" -> You are the one who has to get consensus before imposing "your" version.
You already did that many times on other articles (Berber people and Maghreb people) by considering that, since nobody oppose you, then everybody support you... things don't work this way!
Since there is no consensus, the previous version (without collapsible boxes) is the sole accepted one.
Further forcing will be reported to ANI. --Omar-Toons (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This template is more compact, without non-encyclopedic material and with a map of Morocco which is, imho, more adequate than a coat of arms which exists since 1956 (the template retraces the History to 11th C.)
Thanks.
78.251.194.230 (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Thank you for the effort you put into making this template, I think you would have to wait for the concerned editors to come back from their block before we can reach a consensus on this.
Prior to any discussion, the template must be reverted to its Aug 8th version, since it is the only stable one, and that no consensus was found for the current version in use, which was imopsed by Dzlinkerbefore seeking for a consensus.
The last proposal is, imho, a good basis to work on, but there are no collapsible lists and I see no problem about the coat of arms since many "History Of" templates use the current coat of arms to illustrate it.
I will work on adding collapsible boxes and I will then make a proposal ; I hope that the IP contributor will be back to discuss it.
I was trying to make a new template, based on the one made by the IP contributor ; however I found that there is a big problem: The lists are not automatically expanded while active.
This why I think that a "compact" template without collapsible lists is more appropriate than the current one (which looks really bad), except if anyone can put sth that makes it auto-expanding.
I don't think they can auto-expand, never seen it on any template here. The majority of country history templates use {{template:Country history}}; which is not collapsed. But since the majority of Morocco's history article aren't that big the template is often cumbersome. Hence making it collapsible, shortening its content or even better expanding the articles are all potentially good ideas --Tachfin (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Religion are nor part
Hi!, I eliminate religioso part of template because it`s about history, not "History of Religion in Morocco", and I add another country and cultures that I found it in a book of University of Leiden. Thanks!.83.36.37.144 (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Template revival
So....what's the current status of the template question? There were some good proposals on making it collapsible (which I feel is quite necessary). But a few criticisms here and there, and the whole thing seems to have petered out. I'd still like to see it happen, so any chance of reviving this question and settling on an adequate template? Walrasiad (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we can ask User:Dzlinker to discuss his changes before applying them! He pretends that there is a consensus on his editing on this talk page, do you see it? I don't...
I think the issue is obvious, and there is no particular reason to keep the actual template. Is there? Dzlinker (talk)
I'm here giving my opinion because Darkness Shines posted on my talk page. To be honest, I just don't care enough about the style of a Wikipedia template to get involved in this debate. However, I will restate my position: I support collapsible sections to make the template take up less space, but I think the changes to the header ("part of a series...") look better in the older version with "History of Morocco" on top and "part of series" below. -- Irn (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK! then i will replace the current template with the second proposition Dzlinker (talk)
Non Existing Articles
This template gives links to non existing articles. In fact:
As there is no article relative to the kingdom of Marakech, the template uses the one related to the city of Marakech which is false. A dedicated article should be created. Despite the fact that the article Marrakech contains some history of the city and its region, it is not specific to that kingdom…
The same thing is noticed for the Imamate of Souss (or Sous): no article about this political entity so the template uses the one related to the region of Sous…
The template mentions ‘’The kingdom of sous’’ with direct link to the article relative to the region of Sous, is there any repetition here? Is the Imamate of Sous = The kingdom of Sous?
Hello. Here's a version of the template whose main improvement is a smallest font-size that's readable. If I recall correctly, there's been no change to the layout or what's linked by the template. Or, if there has, it's (very) minor. 213.246.91.158 (talk) 02:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
