Template talk:Conservatism navbox

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Closed as not moved. bd2412 T 03:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Template:Conservatism footer → Template:Conservatism –

• "footer" no longer needed if/when the sidebar Template:Conservatism moved to Template:Conservatism sidebar (see above). CsDix (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I moved the sidebar Template:Conservatism moved to Template:Conservatism sidebar. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks – and thanks for setting up this thread. CsDix (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose speedy rename. I like having "footer" and "sidebar" distinctions explicitly in the naming of hte templates. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

  ...although the inclusion of "footer" (or "navbox") seems the least consistent, probably because the navbox (of which the "footer" looks the most common instance) is treated as if the default kind of template..? CsDix (talk) 07:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Let the WikiProject manage this. None of these moves would be disruptive as long as whoever moves them sees to the redirects. --BDD (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of custom colors

I've removed the use of custom colors from this template, as I have also done with the navboxes for Nazism, Neo-Nazism, Anarchism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Liberalism, Communism, and other ideologies. None of these color schemes serve any encyclopedic purpose, and are solely decoration for the sake of decoration. -- The Anome (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I just removed another recent colour change to "Navy" background. Multiple footer templates are often used in pages and these WP:SHOUTing colour shades conflict and look exceedingly ugly. I support removing all custom colors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

As above, I have also removed custom colors. This is a recurring problem. The use of these colors also often makes navigation harder as it can make it impossible to tell when titles are also links and when they are just titles. There are also often MOS:CONTRAST issues, which falls under Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Grayfell (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Bloat?

I noticed that the user Greyfell removed what he considers bloat from the template, and I feel like he removed too much as such I want to argue over this decision. --Kanclerz K-Tech (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You want to argue?

Navboxes are intended to be links to uncontroversially relevant articles. Most of the ones I removed are either disputable, or very, very broad. Not every article on a topic in sociology or politics is automatically relevant to this specific topic. We already have navboxes for these broader categories.

Further, every single included article must explain the connection to the topic. Information on Wikipedia needs to be supported by sources, and this is no exception. If linked articles do not directly explain the connection to "conservatism" such that any reader can very it, then it is premature to include it in this navbox.

To put it another way, do not use original research to decide which articles to include and which to leave out. Look at what the articles are saying, and look at the sources, and use that to decide which to add and which to leave-out. Do not use your own understanding of the topic to fill in the gaps, even if it seems obvious, as Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing original research. Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Trakking: Please feel free to join the conversation. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Trakking: Per your edit summary, consensus is typically formed on talk pages. If you have sources, you should add them to the linked articles. Merely stating that you have sources isn't good enough; you need to actually cite them. You should also review Help:Minor edit. Grayfell (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Russia is NOT Asia

Russia is a European country. Russian culture is rooted in Christianity, and also, its capital is in Europe. Russia covers both Asia and Europe, but in a traditional sense, it is not culturally Asia. I am Asian and the Asians I know think Russia is a European country. Recently, Europeans have tried to separate themselves from Russia, BUT most Asians would not consider Russia an Asian country.

The division between Asia and Europe is not divided into accepting liberal democracy or not. It is rather arrogance to think that Asia would be a dictatorship. Russia is clearly just a non-Asia/Europe's dictatorship. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and India are clearly liberal democracies, unlike Europe's dictatorship Russia. Mureungdowon (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2023

I recommend the addition of Giorgia Meloni, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, and José María Aznar to the list of conservative politicians in this template. Their times in government have resulted in significant advancements of the ideology in their respective countries. 174.65.93.112 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear why these politicians are worthy of inclusion. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Should any of these lists be merged?

@Trakking: I tried to merge some redundant lists that appeared in {{Conservatism navbox}} and {{Conservatism sidebar}}. Since the lists in the navbox are more comprehensive, should the lists from the navbox be transcluded into the sidebar? Jarble (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Valid question. But no, I don’t think so in this case. Navboxes are smaller and more hidden by being placed at the bottom of an article in a collapsed form, where large amounts of information may be collected without disrupting the flow of the article. So the sidebar is supposed to be an abridged version of an extensive topic.

There is, I think, an unspoken consensus about this, because I and others have been adding terms/people to this list without adding them to the sidebar. But it’s a hard question where to draw the line, so I sometimes look at this template and consider whether there are any more terms/people to incorporate into the sidebar. Trakking (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way: appreciate your work. Just think this case is an exception. :) Trakking (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

Request to add

• Lee Kuan Yew
• Modi
• Suharto
• D. F. Malan
• Ian Smith
• Sese Seko
• Ngo Dinh Diem
• Netanyahu

223.25.74.34 (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contribution. I added them to the list—with the exception of Malan (too obscure) and Diem (not explicitly conservative). Trakking (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of neo-ottomanism

The article neo-ottomanism doesn't mention one word about conservatism. Why include it in this template other than being WP:OR and WP:JUST? No need for seeking consensus if there isn't a valid source backing this claim. Randam (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Neo-Ottomanism is 100% reactionary conservatism. The article explicitly links it to a "revival of Ottoman traditions and culture" and the Justice and Development Party, which self-describes as conservative democratic. Trakking (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2024

Request to add

• Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq
• Vladimir Putin
• Ali Khamenei
• Ruhollah Khomeini

129.126.202.49 (talk) 12:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I added Zia; the rest were already included. Trakking (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)