This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofanarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related tophilosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join thegeneral discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
Note: This template is a horizontal version of{{Anarchism sidebar}}; this talkpage is for discussing thelayout andusage of this template only. Issues regarding thecontent of this template should be discussed atTemplate talk:Anarchism sidebar.
First of all, let me congratulateCast on yet another great contribution to anarchism on wikipedia; there was a clear need for this template. It might be useful to discuss in which articles and in which manner this template ought to be used instead ofTemplate:Anarchism sidebar. I can think of a few potential cases:
Articles such asHaymarket Riot which are particularly cluttered with images and other sidebar material.
Articles that are not directly related to anarchism such thatTemplate:Anarchism sidebar would giveundue weight to anarchism. I'm thinking especially here about biographical articles where the individual concerned is notable for factors other than anarchism.
The horizontal bar also features a more prominent circle-flag next to theAnarchism Portal link, thus drawing a reader's attention. This is meant to also replace theTemplate:Anarchism portal. It can replace both the vertical and portal templates in stubs where, as you note, there is little side bar space. This is less important in larger articles, where there is room for separate vertical and portal templates. The vertical template need not depreciate the separate portal template. (And besides, I tried putting the flag in the vertical template, and it just didn't look good.¯\(º_o)/¯)
This one is so big, it would look crazy in stubbier articles without the hide/show thing being defaulted to hide. But it seems like the other one is gonna be more appropriate for some articles, I wouldnt' get rid of it yet.Murderbike (talk)04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I more than agree that it is oversized, but seeing as I wanted to mirror the vertical template, I didn't want to omit anything. I did compensate for this by setting the default to hide. We will eventually have to face the overpopulation issue in the vertical template, and when that is done we can address the horizontal template accordingly. Until then, I would say there is nothing to worry about. Any talk of changes to both templates can be carried out in the vertical template talk page. Talk in this article should be considered specific to only this template.
I've just thrown together a talkheader (see above) to direct users to the main template talkpage. Feel free to modify it for tone/accuracy as you all see fit.Skomorokhincite05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a big issue, central to syndicalism, communism and social anarchism generally. We should add it, probably under Theory / Practice. Any objections?Chaikney (talk)21:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,@Гармонический Мир:, I noticed that you changed an edit that I´ve made on the "organization" section. I made the "Affinity group" as the leading concept for the diferent types of anarchist organization, puting it on the Section name.As far as I understand, the affinity group is the primary concept and motivation that leads anarchists to organize themselves, and THEM they decide HOW they will do this, i.e. wich "organization paradigm" they will follow.As can be seen in the section J of the Anarchist FAQ (and more especifiiicaly here on chapter 3.1[1])
"To aid in this process of propaganda, agitation, political discussion and development, anarchists organise federations of affinity groups. These take three main forms, "synthesis" federations (see section J.3.2), "Platformist" federations (see section J.3.3while section J.3.4 has criticism of this tendency) and "class struggle" groups (see section J.3.5). All the various types of federation are based on groups of anarchists organising themselves in a libertarian fashion."
So, what you think of using the "Affinity group" as the section name, and them, inside it, we list the different types?Ogat 16:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia tries to follow the precedence set byreliable, secondary sources. So if we're going to classify "Anarcho-syndicalism, Synthesis anarchism, Platformism, Union of egoists" as types ofaffinity groups, those articles should describe the concept as a kind of affinity group, as backed by reliable, secondary sourcing. The classical vs. post-classical vs. contemporary classification has the same predicament.czar19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CouldAfaq - Section J.3 - What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?[2], and it´s inline citations, be used as a reliable source for classifying those anarchist groups as types of "affinity groups" in it's corresponding articles?Ogat16:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the AFAQ is a crowdsourced document that hasn't been through an editorial/vetting process (not sure if AK Press actually reviewed the manuscript for accuracy or just republished the open/free version), then no, it wouldn't be areliable source. But AFAQ's bibliography would ostensibly be more reliable and independent—e.g., if Bookchin's published/vetted works describe organizations in which he was not personally involved.czar21:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This navbox is extremely bloated right now. Navboxes are designed to facilitate navigation between related articles, but most of the articles in this template are only peripherally connected. Worth thinking about ways it can be pared down or split out into more focused/relevant navboxes. (Part of this navbox's problem is its establishment of some kind of canon of major figures/events, when those items should not be listed if they are not considered universally related to anarchism.)czar23:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what purposes? Collapsing the template doesn't stop it from being bloated (and connecting articles that don't need to be connected) when expanded. At the very least, it should usecollapsible groups, but I'd wager that even that is overkill.czar01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think that collapsing the template's contents resolves the actual issue of bloat when it is uncollapsed. The navbox is meant to be focused links between interrelated articles, not a flatlist version of an outline or the invention of a canon where none is clearly established. We should be ripping out entire sections of this navbox.czar10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I already voiced it andMOS:COLLAPSE has more on preferring content reduction over content collapse as an intervention. I've removed the history and people sections as forming an arbitrary canon. Feel free to prune further. This navbox should show the connection between core anarchist ideas, history, culture, and we can afford to include fewer of the fringe articles. No prejudice against other breakout navboxes for subtopics within anarchism.czar05:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why this crypto thing has been included in the template when the article literally puts a ancap template, and has no mention to proper anarchism?JoaquimCebuano (talk)05:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: please establish aconsensus for this alterationbefore using the
