Template talk:History of Georgia (country)

message: There should be a similar template about Abkhazia, covering the evolution of Abkhazian statedom from Kingdom of Abkhazia through Principality of Abkhazia to the Abkhazian SSR. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now one at :Template:History_of_Abkhazia. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Abkhazian template

message: This template has been fully protected for a month. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be decreased or increased depending upon the resolution or non-resolution of the issues due to which protection was initially applied. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on this talk page. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the  template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. Please don't forget to put this template as otherwise, administrators might not be able to keep a track of the issue. Contact me for any further administrative assistance. Thanks.  Wifione Message 06:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full protection 

message: Please add the  template between a  markup. Thank you. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Anomie⚔ 21:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: This is what tempalte should look like.
These are the most important articles. The ones I removed are not essential and some are a couple of sentences. It does not have to be a list of all Georgian history articles, but a survey of those the most important. I deleted the odd-looking map on top because seal is what I see being used on other country pages and its more official. This person, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tanllocittis , did not like it an remove it but the page was not blocked like they block it for me. How is this fair? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozce (talk • contribs) 05:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Anomie⚔ 15:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: New section

message: As in the last discussion, GeorgianJorjadze actually objected to only one aspect of the proposed changes, and did not answer other problems where consensus between all other participants in the discussion had been achieved, I implemented the uncontested changes. There remains only one question to be solved: should all minor states or sub-state entities in the medieval history of Georgia be linked in this template (principalities and duchies)?
For reasons I've explained above (a specific template exists for them, it clogs the template here), I think they should be removed. I should mention that at the beginning of this dispute, GeorgianJorjadze obviously agreed with the removal of duchies from the list, as he made the change himself (see this change at my suggestion. His position seems to have changed, but with no constructive approach to the debate. I hope we can reach consensus on this point too, if every interested user comes forward with possible, reasoned, solutions.--Susuman77 (talk) 09:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The template now I like it or not seems to be somehow normal. Colchis, Iberia and Diauhi should be mentioned as Kingdoms as they were so I've edited them. Though I am thinking about Roman Rule in place of Roman Georgia. Or Roman Georgia is better? GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think you're wrong to think of the template in terms of "I like it or not". You need to spend more time reading the arguments put forward by other users instead of only relying on your personal taste: even though you put a lot of input in this template, you don't own it. Articles have their current names for a reason, and this template is not the place to change them: if you think some of those names are wrong, go ahead to those articles' pages and make your point there - if you are right, it will be much more productive, and more people will have a chance to discuss it. Meanwhile, names in the templates should be those of the articles they link to, unless they're too long or there's ambiguity. Also, per WP:LOWERCASE, names in titles and links should not be written with a capital at the beginning: it is culture, dynasty, rule. I'm sorry to have to repeat that once again, and hope that for once, you will read those arguments, and not blindly revert any corrections made to your favorite template before thinking. Thanks!--Susuman77 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Roman Georgia is the article title. Without good reason, we should probably follow that. CMD (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes that remain to be debated

message: I've left User:GeorgianJorjadze the following message on his talk page. Given that he regularly blanks it, I figured I'd better copy it here, as it relates to this template and the changes he keeps making to it, and he can as well answer the issues on this talk page:
GeorgianJorjadze, your last edits to the template are disruptive.
To quote that policy, in case you are just ignorant of it:
:A disruptive editor is an editor who:
* Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.   An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. 
* Does not engage in consensus building:
** repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
** repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
You were the one who asked for discussion to be opened on the template's talk page. Now, you are the one who makes changes without any discussion, and doesn't answer our requests to explain your edits.
To give you concrete examples:
* the official manual of style explains the use of lower/upper-case at WP:LOWERCASE. You keep correcting names in violation of this guideline (rule=>Rule, dynasty=>Dynasty, etc.). If the articles are named this way, there is a reason for it, and there is no use trying to change the style in the templates.
* more generally, using for the link the name of the article linked is the most obvious policy, unless reasons specific to the template can be given. If you think articles are wrongly named, discuss possible changes there, not on the template.
* lastly, adding Kartlos in this template makes no sense. This is a mythological, not an historical figure, as the article itself makes clear. Wikipedia doesn't list Hellen in Template:History of Greece, and for good reasons.
Please take all that into account, and revert your last changes, or at least don't revert the next editor who will do so. Otherwise, I'll be forced to notify admins per WP:DDE. One admin that I asked for advice already advised this course of action (User talk:Drmies#Problem with Template:History of Georgia). Thanks!--Susuman77 (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning message

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Georgia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion in progress

message: Hello. I've just updated the template to a better one with better functionality with collapsible lists, light colours which looks functional and way more better than it was in the past. But user  is removing all those changes what I've done for making the template more functional. He/She is engaged in edit war and reverts all my changes back and makes the template back to the quasi mode as it was back then. Frietjes, please explain yourself and first discuss and suggest what is your problem with the template I've made and why do you engage into edit war? GeorgianJorjadze 23:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the recent undiscussed style changes.  Please feel free to discuss here, but it appears these changes are not inline with the format used by other History of Country templates, so any deviations should really be discussed first.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just don't understand why my updated template is being reverted back by user Frietjes. The format is way better than it was in the past. And is this only about Georgian history template? There are many history templates like that e.g. History of Japan, Iran, China etc. My updated version is perfectly functional with better look and better functionality. I am not interested waging into edit wars and I am for here to contribute with others as well but my updated version has nothing to be critical about. GeorgianJorjadze 12:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  let's see, it's about 4000 bytes larger, harder to read, uses non-standard colouring, uses deprecated html, doesn't use LUA.  Indeed, other than you like it, what is better about your version? Frietjes (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 4000 bytes larger? And that is your reason to revert back my updated template? GeorgianJorjadze 15:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  since you weren't able to read my entire list, here are the other reasons from my comment: harder to read, uses non-standard colouring, uses deprecated html, doesn't use LUA. sorry if you feel you WP:OWN the template, but it appears the standard styling provided by  is the accepted version. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about these templates? Template:History of Iran, Template:History of China etc. ? Aren't they with non-standard colouring, aren't they harder to read? or how many bytes are they? GeorgianJorjadze 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes they are, and they fail wp:accessibility guidelines on colour contrast.  they should be fixed as well. Frietjes (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

text:  see Template talk:History of China#Sidebar with infoboxes version and Template talk:History of Iran#Sidebar with infoboxes version. it appears others have noticed the deprecated code. Frietjes (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But they are almost the same. they have same structure and colours. But you seem to have problems with only Georgian history template or what? I'll change the template to that style and would you like it then? GeorgianJorjadze 17:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, they should all match  as close as possible. not sure where you came to the conclusion that I "have problems with only Georgian history template".  have you seen my edit history? Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am asking you again. Does Chinese and Iranian history templates match ? Why don't you edit those templates then? I have nothing about those two and if you ask me they look good and needs no change but why don't you edit them but only edit out only Georgian one in this case? GeorgianJorjadze 18:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do Chinese and Iranian history templates match ? then why not request a change to  if you feel it that is the superior design?  or do you  think that Georgia is the same as China and Iran, but not the same as most other countries? Frietjes (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Answer my question please. Why is it that you change Georgian template but Iranian and Chinese templates don't? GeorgianJorjadze 18:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  the fact that two entirely different templates need to be updated to the standard is not a reason to change this template to use a non-standard format. discussions for changing other templates would happen on the talk pages of the other templates, which is exactly what is happening. Frietjes (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  the fact that no one is fixing those two templates means that there is NOTHING wrong with those templates and they are working fine and same should be for Georgian template and the changes I've made yesterday. GeorgianJorjadze 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  the fact that two entirely different templates need to be updated to the standard is not a reason to change this template to use a non-standard format. discussions for changing other templates would happen on the talk pages of the other templates, which is exactly what is happening. if you wish to beat this dead horse, then try to answer the following questions (1) why does this template need to use a format which is different than the format used by most other countries? (2) if the format you have propose is superior, why have you not proposed a change to  so all articles can benefit from this superior design? Frietjes (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one says here that my updated template is superior in comparison to others. Every country's history is different and unique in their own way and so is Georgian history. Wiki is for contributing to the knowledge and awareness and there are many exceptions on wiki with the templates, its colours, formats etc. Why do you reject individualism? or what is wrong with the Chinese or Iranian history templates that are not "standard templates" as you want them to be? Every country has its own unique qualities and templates can be changed if it is orineted on better knowledge and better quality of things here. Is it that hard to understand? GeorgianJorjadze 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I've improved the template to this. Just added საქართველოს ისტორია in small letters which fit well with the template. GeorgianJorjadze 20:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current version looks pretty good.  We should try to keep with the style used by the Region history template if possible.  It's too bad that template doesn't support collapsible groups.  Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Updated 

message: I believe we should use the default sidebar width for multiple reasons
# a narrow width causes problems with the show/hide links overlapping the section title text (see this screenshot)
# when the box is stacked near another infobox or sidebar of a different width, this causes a ragged right appearance
# the ragged right problem can cause the prose text to overlap the sidebar if the boxes are stacked in the wrong order
thank you. Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True. Thanks for explanation. Jaqeli 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with Frietjes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale for using the default sidebar width