Ukraine Template‑class | |||||||
|
History Template‑class | |||||||
|
Nice job. What about adding some Ukrainian colors/symbols to make the template more 'live'? Some blues and yellows would be nice, I think. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I would more tha welcome anyone messing with this template, provided these are not known troublemakers. You know who I mean and definetely not any of those who already commented :) . - Irpen 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
How could a piece of land that is integrally part of a another country be occupied? Its like saying that just because my Kuban is part of Russia it is occupied by it... I hope nobody minds me purging this nonsense.-- Kuban Cossack 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
May I propose Foreign rule? This period of history is typically depicted by Ukrainian historians as a time when most of present-day Ukraine was split and controlled by foreign powers. During this period, the concept of Ukrainian nationalism was brought to the fore, which was challenged by harsh restrictions on self-expression (see Taras Shevchenko, Ems Ukaz, etc...), so I certainly do not think that "occupation" was way over the line, but if it has inherent POV, then since the corresponding section in HoU is titled Russian and Austrian Rule, I will insert Foreign rule for now.-- tufkaa 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny that there was integration, but from the perspective of the HoU, this was a period lacking in self-autonomy. The preceding period of Cossack rule range from full to partial autonomy, however that was abolished along with the Sich. If this wasn't foreign rule, then from where do the concepts of nationalism emerge?-- tufkaa 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm just trying to find an agreeable title. However, according to WP:
Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizing nations generally control and exploit the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory. Some colonizing powers imposed their socio-cultural and religious practices and their language on the conquered population and suppressed the local religions or languages (see also cultural imperialism).
Both the Tsardom of Russia an the Empire extended their borders and directly ruled the populations indigenous to the newly acquired area. So by that definition, I have to point out that using such language as Foreign rule, especially in the context of HofUA, is, again, not over the line. Other templates with similar histories point to a "Union", although I can't really see a practical parallel in Ukraine's case. Perhaps Partitions (of Ukraine? of Ruthenia?)?-- tufkaa 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the word "show" is nearly invisible in the template now; you may want to change its color. Beit Or 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop slapping this template on every article listed by it. Some articles it may be useful to link to, but may not be focussing on the Ukraine specifically enough to warrant transclusion of the template on the article (e.g. Scythia). -- dab (𒁳) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not correct to use the Greater Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg because it's project only. In article Coat_of_arms_of_Ukraine you can read The Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine was never officially adopted, but it was published in various heraldic sources. So, it will be more correctly use Lesser_Coat_of_Arms_of_Ukraine.svg. -- Movses ( talk) 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask what is the reasoning of including the Holodomor here? True it is an important event, but for example you don't see the Holocaust on Template:History of Germany, nor do you see the Irish Potato Famine on Template:History of Ireland, so what makes Holodomor unique? We have section on the Ukrainian SSR, which would generally describe that. -- Kuban Cossack ( По-балакаем?) 12:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it does. What are Galician SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic doing there? Somebody is trying to say that these were more important than Holodomor? This is beyond rediculous! There were way more important events than these two short-lived republics, which obviously suits someone's POV. It is time to clean them out. I wonder, what other editors think about this? -- Hillock65 ( talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't Orange Revolution in the template? Ostap 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This navigation box doesn't have to be identical to the many others, and even if it did, one would have to consider others which haven't been mentioned. Some are very detailed, approaching timelines, some are more thematic or geographical. See {{ History of Russia}}, which mentions the specific events February Revolution and Civil War, {{ Islam}}, {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, which does indeed link to the Holocaust and many other events, {{ History of China}}, {{ History of Japan}}, {{ Aliyah}}, and {{ History of Australia}}, for some examples.
My biggest concerns are with the poor usability of this template. By default, it displays five “show” links which don't get the reader anywhere, and only three functional links, which are obscured by appearing in the same non-standard colour as three non-link titles. The tryzub and its colour identify the navbox sufficiently—there's no need to reduce the utility with excessive decoration. The template should emulate some of the other long ones by initially showing all links in small text. Regards. — Michael Z. 2008-07-23 22:28 z
I support making the template more simple. I see absolutely no reason to not include Holodomor. Ostap 22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a proposal for a redesign, including all of the links currently there, plus a couple of non-chronological ones added at the top. I've added a separate section for independent Ukraine.
This is simpler than the current layout, and makes all of the links directly accessible. — Michael Z. 2008-07-24 22:56 z
Some comments about recent changes.
I changed “Modern Ukraine” to “Independent Ukraine.” Modern has a specific and very different meaning in the context of historical periods, and is already used in the link for “Imperial Period,” which links to the article Early Modern Period.
I don't see a problem with having the “modern” coat of arms. The tryzub itself is a symbol which goes back to very early recorded history in Ukraine.
The dots already separate single navigation links: adding a dash confuses the typographical scheme. I'm not sure about the exact relationship of Scythia/Sarmatia, but can we separate them with a dot, or use brackets (“Sarmatia (Scythia)”), or just link to one of them? — Michael Z. 2008-07-25 15:48 z
Oops, it looks like the following links have been removed recently. A few have been mentioned in talk here, but none of this appears any edit summary, and I don't know if it is supported by consensus.
I'm going to restore them to the template, so that no one can complain about sneaky deletions. Please remove any that don't belong here, but please make use of the edit summary. Cheers. — Michael Z. 2008-07-25 21:06 z
Yes, but Ukrainian People's Republic was a Ukrainian polity not a German colony. Just like Vichy France was a French polity and was governed by renowned prewar French leaders, and remained independent throughout the war. -- Bogdan що? 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I put Ukrainization in the Template cause it explains the current language problems and east-west divisions in current Ukraine. I put in Cassette Scandal cause it seems to be a build up to the Orange Revolution. Also I would like to again point out that Orange Revolution is find important by western journalist and most English speaking country's are in "The West". I am ussualy for stuffing this templates with as much as possible :) since where not short on paper and it gives the wikipedain a handy remote control between articles. Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The Independence period is important not only because of the Orange Revolution. There were a few other important events: Tuzla, Gas dispute, Cassette scandal. The Orange Revolution is a watershed between before and after. It is not just an event. May I remind that it put Ukraine on the world map, deepened the split in society, caused deterioration of relations with Russia and events that spiralled from there. Just for these reasons alone, its exclusion from template is not wise. -- Hillock65 ( talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mariah-Yulia, but as I mentioned above, I object to a navigation box which appears with all of its navigation links hidden, and requires a reader to operate six controls to get a historical overview. The box should convey its information immediately and be operated with a single click. Your reasoning “It's smaller” makes no sense to me, because we are not short on paper—is there a particular article where the template's vertical height was causing a layout problem?
At least four other editors have expressed approval for the simpler design on this page, and no one else has asked for hidden links, so I'm going to revert to the previous layout until it looks like consensus is against it. Regards. — Michael Z. 2008-07-27 16:07 z
Regarding KK's edit with the summary “ Don't mutilate article titles,” and the preceding edit summarized as “ per talk” (yeah, right): It is appropriate to use Ukrainian names in the Ukrainian history navigation, which appear in Ukrainian History articles. Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Chernyakhiv culture, Halych-Volyn’, Bukovyna, Chornobyl, are all appropriate.
And rudeness, like referring to Ukrainian names as “mutilation,” sure won't help you gain consensus. — Michael Z. 2008-07-28 15:09 z
History of Russia |
---|
Russia portal |
Have a look at History of Russia template, why don't we also add the dates, and trim the template from excessive detail. Also here is another problem, and general we have the Mongol Invasion of Rus in 1240, we have the Cossack Hetmanate in 1654, but that leaves a four century gap in the History of Ukraine, there is very scarce information in many articles as to what happened during that time, particularly in central and eastern Ukraine. -- Kuban Cossack ( По-балакаем?) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
“Modern” Ukraine is simply an incorrect name for the link to History of Ukraine#Independence. In history, Modern history, the Modern era, or Modernity mean something absolutely different. It doesn't matter to me what History of Belarus or some other template does, the word simply doesn't refer to this period in a history context. Accepting this reflects poorly on us as the editors.
If we want to be specific, then we can call it:
“Independent Ukraine” is my choice. It precisely identifies the period to the reader with reference to its defining event, and also names the linked article section. It happens to be the title of Yekelchyk's book section about the subject. One editor objects to the title because Ukraine was independent before, but I don't see how that could cause any confusion here at all.
But please let's change it to any acceptable name. — Michael Z. 2008-07-29 21:51 z
[Topic introduced by Hillock65 above: “As well, I think Imperial period should be changed as well. It is vague as well. Poland also had periods of Imperial rule, and yet they don't call it that. It is early modern period. Why do we call in Imperial and then redirect to Early Modern Europe? What's wrong with calling it what it is: Early Modern Period.” —MZ]
I chose the name, because it describes the tenure of Ukrainian lands under both the Russian and Habsburg empires (While “Early Modern period” says nothing to me about Ukraine's history, and might include the Cossack era as well). I think it was inspired by a book chapter, but I can't remember specifically. The link doesn't have to be there; I chose it based on the period. — Michael Z. 2008-07-29 23:59 z
Found this on commons. It looks a bit more historical, but I maybe the coin background is a bit distracting. — Michael Z. 2008-08-08 05:33 z
Seeing some disagreements - I would like to point out that as a citizen of Ukraine I would approve the inclusion of the following in the template: - Holodomor - Orange Revolution (and the surrounding events - although I oppose any one-sided illumination of this occurrence) - Trypillya ? - I thought maybe have some sort of continuous line of culture evolution in the territory of Ukraine - from oldest known to modern. Cos in my mind a nation/country is mainly its culture. Will take a closer look and try to constructively contribute - it's a promise :) Vvolodymyr ( talk) 12:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I simply don't understand why this part of Ukraine's history should be erased from the template. It's been erased because it's "German colonial administration". Well, then why does Habsburg Monarchy or Soviet Union stay in the template? Like it or not the Reichskommissariat is an important part of Ukraine's history. And since there is no real article about Ukraine in World War II yet, but only a small section in the article History of Ukraine and with no information about Reichskommissariat Ukraine I strongly suggest it should stay in the template. Närking ( talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My problem, in short, is that a Nazi governing structure is being portraied as a Ukrainian polity alongside the UNR and UkrSSR. And what other governing body on the template lasted 2.5 year Narking? You seem to have a lot of suggestions for others (and pointing out what others like and don't like with a very NPOV image on your user page) but you've yet to answer my question: why is the short lived Nazi governing structure is so vital to Ukrainian history? -- Tavrian 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Ukraine Template‑class | |||||||
|
History Template‑class | |||||||
|
Nice job. What about adding some Ukrainian colors/symbols to make the template more 'live'? Some blues and yellows would be nice, I think. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I would more tha welcome anyone messing with this template, provided these are not known troublemakers. You know who I mean and definetely not any of those who already commented :) . - Irpen 19:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
How could a piece of land that is integrally part of a another country be occupied? Its like saying that just because my Kuban is part of Russia it is occupied by it... I hope nobody minds me purging this nonsense.-- Kuban Cossack 12:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
May I propose Foreign rule? This period of history is typically depicted by Ukrainian historians as a time when most of present-day Ukraine was split and controlled by foreign powers. During this period, the concept of Ukrainian nationalism was brought to the fore, which was challenged by harsh restrictions on self-expression (see Taras Shevchenko, Ems Ukaz, etc...), so I certainly do not think that "occupation" was way over the line, but if it has inherent POV, then since the corresponding section in HoU is titled Russian and Austrian Rule, I will insert Foreign rule for now.-- tufkaa 17:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny that there was integration, but from the perspective of the HoU, this was a period lacking in self-autonomy. The preceding period of Cossack rule range from full to partial autonomy, however that was abolished along with the Sich. If this wasn't foreign rule, then from where do the concepts of nationalism emerge?-- tufkaa 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'm just trying to find an agreeable title. However, according to WP:
Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizing nations generally control and exploit the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory. Some colonizing powers imposed their socio-cultural and religious practices and their language on the conquered population and suppressed the local religions or languages (see also cultural imperialism).
Both the Tsardom of Russia an the Empire extended their borders and directly ruled the populations indigenous to the newly acquired area. So by that definition, I have to point out that using such language as Foreign rule, especially in the context of HofUA, is, again, not over the line. Other templates with similar histories point to a "Union", although I can't really see a practical parallel in Ukraine's case. Perhaps Partitions (of Ukraine? of Ruthenia?)?-- tufkaa 18:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Folks, the word "show" is nearly invisible in the template now; you may want to change its color. Beit Or 17:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop slapping this template on every article listed by it. Some articles it may be useful to link to, but may not be focussing on the Ukraine specifically enough to warrant transclusion of the template on the article (e.g. Scythia). -- dab (𒁳) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not correct to use the Greater Coat of Arms of Ukraine.svg because it's project only. In article Coat_of_arms_of_Ukraine you can read The Great Coat of Arms of Ukraine was never officially adopted, but it was published in various heraldic sources. So, it will be more correctly use Lesser_Coat_of_Arms_of_Ukraine.svg. -- Movses ( talk) 14:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Can I ask what is the reasoning of including the Holodomor here? True it is an important event, but for example you don't see the Holocaust on Template:History of Germany, nor do you see the Irish Potato Famine on Template:History of Ireland, so what makes Holodomor unique? We have section on the Ukrainian SSR, which would generally describe that. -- Kuban Cossack ( По-балакаем?) 12:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it does. What are Galician SSR and the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic doing there? Somebody is trying to say that these were more important than Holodomor? This is beyond rediculous! There were way more important events than these two short-lived republics, which obviously suits someone's POV. It is time to clean them out. I wonder, what other editors think about this? -- Hillock65 ( talk) 19:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't Orange Revolution in the template? Ostap 22:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This navigation box doesn't have to be identical to the many others, and even if it did, one would have to consider others which haven't been mentioned. Some are very detailed, approaching timelines, some are more thematic or geographical. See {{ History of Russia}}, which mentions the specific events February Revolution and Civil War, {{ Islam}}, {{ Jews and Judaism sidebar}}, which does indeed link to the Holocaust and many other events, {{ History of China}}, {{ History of Japan}}, {{ Aliyah}}, and {{ History of Australia}}, for some examples.
My biggest concerns are with the poor usability of this template. By default, it displays five “show” links which don't get the reader anywhere, and only three functional links, which are obscured by appearing in the same non-standard colour as three non-link titles. The tryzub and its colour identify the navbox sufficiently—there's no need to reduce the utility with excessive decoration. The template should emulate some of the other long ones by initially showing all links in small text. Regards. — Michael Z. 2008-07-23 22:28 z
I support making the template more simple. I see absolutely no reason to not include Holodomor. Ostap 22:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
|
Here's a proposal for a redesign, including all of the links currently there, plus a couple of non-chronological ones added at the top. I've added a separate section for independent Ukraine.
This is simpler than the current layout, and makes all of the links directly accessible. — Michael Z. 2008-07-24 22:56 z
Some comments about recent changes.
I changed “Modern Ukraine” to “Independent Ukraine.” Modern has a specific and very different meaning in the context of historical periods, and is already used in the link for “Imperial Period,” which links to the article Early Modern Period.
I don't see a problem with having the “modern” coat of arms. The tryzub itself is a symbol which goes back to very early recorded history in Ukraine.
The dots already separate single navigation links: adding a dash confuses the typographical scheme. I'm not sure about the exact relationship of Scythia/Sarmatia, but can we separate them with a dot, or use brackets (“Sarmatia (Scythia)”), or just link to one of them? — Michael Z. 2008-07-25 15:48 z
Oops, it looks like the following links have been removed recently. A few have been mentioned in talk here, but none of this appears any edit summary, and I don't know if it is supported by consensus.
I'm going to restore them to the template, so that no one can complain about sneaky deletions. Please remove any that don't belong here, but please make use of the edit summary. Cheers. — Michael Z. 2008-07-25 21:06 z
Yes, but Ukrainian People's Republic was a Ukrainian polity not a German colony. Just like Vichy France was a French polity and was governed by renowned prewar French leaders, and remained independent throughout the war. -- Bogdan що? 17:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I put Ukrainization in the Template cause it explains the current language problems and east-west divisions in current Ukraine. I put in Cassette Scandal cause it seems to be a build up to the Orange Revolution. Also I would like to again point out that Orange Revolution is find important by western journalist and most English speaking country's are in "The West". I am ussualy for stuffing this templates with as much as possible :) since where not short on paper and it gives the wikipedain a handy remote control between articles. Mariah-Yulia ( talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The Independence period is important not only because of the Orange Revolution. There were a few other important events: Tuzla, Gas dispute, Cassette scandal. The Orange Revolution is a watershed between before and after. It is not just an event. May I remind that it put Ukraine on the world map, deepened the split in society, caused deterioration of relations with Russia and events that spiralled from there. Just for these reasons alone, its exclusion from template is not wise. -- Hillock65 ( talk) 16:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Mariah-Yulia, but as I mentioned above, I object to a navigation box which appears with all of its navigation links hidden, and requires a reader to operate six controls to get a historical overview. The box should convey its information immediately and be operated with a single click. Your reasoning “It's smaller” makes no sense to me, because we are not short on paper—is there a particular article where the template's vertical height was causing a layout problem?
At least four other editors have expressed approval for the simpler design on this page, and no one else has asked for hidden links, so I'm going to revert to the previous layout until it looks like consensus is against it. Regards. — Michael Z. 2008-07-27 16:07 z
Regarding KK's edit with the summary “ Don't mutilate article titles,” and the preceding edit summarized as “ per talk” (yeah, right): It is appropriate to use Ukrainian names in the Ukrainian history navigation, which appear in Ukrainian History articles. Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Chernyakhiv culture, Halych-Volyn’, Bukovyna, Chornobyl, are all appropriate.
And rudeness, like referring to Ukrainian names as “mutilation,” sure won't help you gain consensus. — Michael Z. 2008-07-28 15:09 z
History of Russia |
---|
Russia portal |
Have a look at History of Russia template, why don't we also add the dates, and trim the template from excessive detail. Also here is another problem, and general we have the Mongol Invasion of Rus in 1240, we have the Cossack Hetmanate in 1654, but that leaves a four century gap in the History of Ukraine, there is very scarce information in many articles as to what happened during that time, particularly in central and eastern Ukraine. -- Kuban Cossack ( По-балакаем?) 12:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
“Modern” Ukraine is simply an incorrect name for the link to History of Ukraine#Independence. In history, Modern history, the Modern era, or Modernity mean something absolutely different. It doesn't matter to me what History of Belarus or some other template does, the word simply doesn't refer to this period in a history context. Accepting this reflects poorly on us as the editors.
If we want to be specific, then we can call it:
“Independent Ukraine” is my choice. It precisely identifies the period to the reader with reference to its defining event, and also names the linked article section. It happens to be the title of Yekelchyk's book section about the subject. One editor objects to the title because Ukraine was independent before, but I don't see how that could cause any confusion here at all.
But please let's change it to any acceptable name. — Michael Z. 2008-07-29 21:51 z
[Topic introduced by Hillock65 above: “As well, I think Imperial period should be changed as well. It is vague as well. Poland also had periods of Imperial rule, and yet they don't call it that. It is early modern period. Why do we call in Imperial and then redirect to Early Modern Europe? What's wrong with calling it what it is: Early Modern Period.” —MZ]
I chose the name, because it describes the tenure of Ukrainian lands under both the Russian and Habsburg empires (While “Early Modern period” says nothing to me about Ukraine's history, and might include the Cossack era as well). I think it was inspired by a book chapter, but I can't remember specifically. The link doesn't have to be there; I chose it based on the period. — Michael Z. 2008-07-29 23:59 z
Found this on commons. It looks a bit more historical, but I maybe the coin background is a bit distracting. — Michael Z. 2008-08-08 05:33 z
Seeing some disagreements - I would like to point out that as a citizen of Ukraine I would approve the inclusion of the following in the template: - Holodomor - Orange Revolution (and the surrounding events - although I oppose any one-sided illumination of this occurrence) - Trypillya ? - I thought maybe have some sort of continuous line of culture evolution in the territory of Ukraine - from oldest known to modern. Cos in my mind a nation/country is mainly its culture. Will take a closer look and try to constructively contribute - it's a promise :) Vvolodymyr ( talk) 12:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I simply don't understand why this part of Ukraine's history should be erased from the template. It's been erased because it's "German colonial administration". Well, then why does Habsburg Monarchy or Soviet Union stay in the template? Like it or not the Reichskommissariat is an important part of Ukraine's history. And since there is no real article about Ukraine in World War II yet, but only a small section in the article History of Ukraine and with no information about Reichskommissariat Ukraine I strongly suggest it should stay in the template. Närking ( talk) 19:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) My problem, in short, is that a Nazi governing structure is being portraied as a Ukrainian polity alongside the UNR and UkrSSR. And what other governing body on the template lasted 2.5 year Narking? You seem to have a lot of suggestions for others (and pointing out what others like and don't like with a very NPOV image on your user page) but you've yet to answer my question: why is the short lived Nazi governing structure is so vital to Ukrainian history? -- Tavrian 23:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)