Template talk:History of Australia

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: History History of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia This template is supported by WikiProject Australian history. History This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory

This template takes up too much right aligned space- I think it should be reduced to the main articles, and a second template used for federation, states and territories, and then a state specific template if anyone wants one.--nixie 05:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone else does it before then, I'll fiddle with it when I finish my WikiBreak. There are ways I can see to keep what's there but make the box smaller. Alternatively, we could chop states and cities from the template or something. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think getting rid of states and capitals is the best way to go, that way the states can have their own history template. Also the division of the general history stuff into more refined categories might get underway soon- so those will need to be added to the history of Australia template.--nixie 04:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the state/city links should stay. Perhaps something like this - it would make the box a tiny bit wider but a lot shorter. -- Chuq 04:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template is more than a screen long as is, which I think is far too long. I think that this is a better, more customised option. I think it is a good idea to have sates and territories separate from cities, since other large cities may eventually get their own pages, History of Newcastle, History of Mount Isa and so on which wouldn't fit easily into the states template.--nixie 02:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The new ones look sensational to me. Ambi 03:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the smaller templates. Though I would like to see some way of navigating from a history article in one section to an article in another section. Otherwise we have effectively broken the series up into non-interconnected smaller serieses. Whether this could be doen using categories or a master template on History of Australia I am not sure. --Martyman-(talk) 03:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Each one links back to History of Australia- which would have the chronological/topical template. I think categories would be another good way to navigate between articles- but I'm not sure about the state of the Australian history categories.--nixie 03:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean History of Australia will have the chronological/topical template or that it will have a combination of all three? Because if it only has the chronological/topical one then there is still no way to navigate from a city to a state through the template. --Martyman-(talk) 06:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The template on the general history summary page should just be the one that is currently the template.--nixie 06:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Well, that makes sense. I wholeheartedly support this being implemented. --Martyman-(talk) 06:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nixie,

The new template looks good to me. Capitalistroadster 04:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're okay as well. I think this template should be retained for History of Australia, and the others created at {{History of Australia/Cities}} etc.--cj | talk 05:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be any objections to this change yet, so I am going to go ahead and copy these templates to {{History of Australia/Cities}}, {{History of Australia/States}} and {{History of Australia/Chronological}}. --Martyman-(talk) 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of the series History of Australia

Chronological

Prehistory

Before 1901

After 1901

Timeline

Topical

Exploration

Constitution

Federation

Immigration

Military

This article is part of the series History of Australia

States and Territories

Australian Capital Territory

Queensland

Tasmania

Victoria

Western Australia

This article is part of the series History of Australia

Cities

Adelaide

Brisbane

Canberra

Melbourne

Perth

Sydney

I have rolled these smaller templates out across the existing articles. Do people think that we should add other Australian cities to the templates as articles are written. Currently we have a History of Geelong article that could be added. --Martyman-(talk) 09:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It mightn't be a bad idea in the case of Geelong (perhaps put a dividing line in to seperate it from the capital cities), but I suspect that this isn't going to scale well (how long before we have history of Brunswick, Victoria?). Ambi 13:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]