Template talk:History of Morocco

Color scheme

Please alter the color scheme of this template. As it stands, small pink text on an intense red background is unreadable.—Perceval 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Better looking and better fitting on articles

i propose this template:

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)

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)

Collapsibility is the main purpose. In many articles this template goes from top to bottom, and make it non readable

The colors are totally flexible. I thought red was the moroccan style, but you can propose what ever you both want. - Dzlinker (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

So should we publish this?? further edits could be done then - Dzlinker (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It gives a great results as seen here.

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...

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the current template is a Template:Region history one, while you are replacing it by a simple Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists.

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".

Omar-Toons (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

Omar-Toons (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Mr. you don't accept a consensus made by more than 3 wpdiens, your further undos will be reported Dzlinker (talk) 00:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal II

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)

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)

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)

Agree, we need key events in here, to make a chronological timeline. Also make subsections in normal text (not bolded) - Dzlinker (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, I've proposed that Kingdom of Fez be merged with Wattasids, since "Kingdom of Fes" referred to various different things at different times, and the current article only speaks of its Wattasid era. --Tachfin (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

the 2nd is too much a massacre to be accepted

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)

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)

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)

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.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:07, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

If this can cool things off, have look at these humorous essays: WP:DEW & WP:LEW.

On the good side this will ultimately lead to huge improvement of the template. Cheers --Tachfin (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Consensus goes here

1. rationally i support the first one - Dzlinker (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Republic of Sale

Why I do not see it?Luciusmaximus (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

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.

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We need a collapsible box here

So let's pick one.

1. Y Support the first proposal Dzlinker (talk) 10:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Since no consensus, no template changes

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)

Reported.

Omar-Toons (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Another proposal

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)

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.

Regards, --Tachfin (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Prior to any discussion...

Hello,

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 Dzlinker before 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.

Regards,

Omar-Toons (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Collapsible list... but?

Hello,

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.

Btw, I'm asking to discuss these changes again since they were made without any consensus, and to have a template based on the Region history template code, as are most "History of" templates on WP: there is a standardized template model for that, we don't have to make a non-standardized one for Morocco ; you can browse all "History of" templates listes, for example, on the Template:History of Europe templates, Template:History of Asia templates, Template:History of Africa templates and Template:History of Oceania templates, curiously only the templates made by Dzlinker don't follow the standard.

Then, any template must be based on the previously cited model of "Region history" templates.

Regards
Omar-Toons (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Edit warring

Had better stop, please reach a consensus before further changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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...

Omar-Toons (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus: Template length

A consensus was made long time ago about this matter. A hard headed user (OmarToon) is making this difficult for every one.

Extended content Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
For the reasons below, i think the template should use drop-down menus - Dzlinker (talk). Template Larger than almost all pages were it's used eg: Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Morocco Republicanism_in_Morocco Hassan_II_of_Morocco Imperial_cities_of_Morocco Ismail_Ibn_Sharif Abderrahmane of Morocco Al-Rashid of Morocco ... This template is very hard to read and to navigate into ... Consensus goes here Users Current template Proposed template User:Dzlinker/mar Dzlinker (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Y

• You could have posted in the section above, please provide a link to this discussion were you say a consensus was formed. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• I have requested three other editors who have recently commented on this issue to look in here. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would ask Dzlinker to avoid personal attacks (WP:NPA) as he did above. --Omar-Toons (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
• 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)
    • I proposed a template by keeping the same header/look than the older one, but with collapsible menu... the difference is that my proposal is based on the {{Country history}} model, as it is the case for most templates of this kind, not a specific template unrelated to the theme. Unfortunately, there is no "auto-expand" option for that kind of templates (nor the one made by Dzlinker). --Omar-Toons (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Proposal II seems ok. Do we have a consensus?

I repeat that a consensus was already made to keep this proposal, but Mr changed his mind. Dzlinker (talk)

• • • • DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS? Dzlinker (talk)
• Calm down and have a nice cup of tea :o) Prop 2 seems to be the choice being made so I would say there is a consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
  • 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?

Fort-Henry (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Veresion with more readable font-sizes, etc

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)

I agree that this layout is far better. However, I took it and modified some details and added some links (click).

Thanks in advance for any comment about it.

--Omar-toons (talk) 11:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Modified version based on the previous proposal

Hello,
Here's a copy of the template I proposed, then it can be easily accessible to all:
--Omar-toons (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)