This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

NEa i want to see the references...--Nea37 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)nea37 In this edit the ((Politics)) template interferes with the Tennessee map (When viewed with small fonts or wide windows) (It's actually funny seeing the map fall on top of the other charts you can play around with Control Scroll to change the font and see how it plays out). This template is a bit to overwhelming for some pages Maybe a smaller template on just for each topic would be more appropriate. I suggest One Template with All the general topics and another template for all the sub topics in that main topic. The main template can link to main page and that main page can have the smaller template link all related articles. Maybe a template on the bottom of the page would be more manageable--E-Bod 03:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The template is more manageable now but. I like the templates on the bottom better such as in the Retina page. It has one template for each of the parts of the retina and another template for each other main part of the eye plus each template shows the progressive from The whole to the part. A template like That template looks really good and won't interferer with images on the page. The current template is better than the one i commented earlier but still is a bit to general. I would suggest somebody use the retina template. I just have a problem with a template that overwhelms the page. but now the template is more tolerable. The template should look good before we start adding an overly long template to each loosely related page under an out of scope topic umbrella topic. One template on Politics is to general for very specific sub-sub-subcategories. Something like Politics-Democracy-Election-Voting system-Bucklin voting or some other break down with only links to larger groups back in the train, smaller rows Dow the train and side groups on it's level. we can have grand fathers brothers and grand children but not 5th cousins.--E-Bod 20:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not use Medicine as a model

I don't like this template how about one modeled after

Template:Medicine

1. The template is on the bottom so won't overwhelm the page
2. the template only links to a direct line from Parents to children with Brothers. Having a link to every second level subtopic to Politics is crazy.

It has several sub templates such as Template:Eye that break down even further to Template:Retina. I like the way the templates are on Retina--E-Bod 20:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template_talk:Medicine#Suggestion Suggest this a template for templates that is totally Groovy. Maybe a color change to make this one stand out but that one is essentially Way Better than the one we have here now.--E-Bod 20:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Never mind after the creaton of Template:Elections Everyting looks great--E-Bod 20:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Does the author mean that early Roman Christians did not believe that the Christian view could be realized on earth?

citizenship is when you get to gether to talk or discuss aproblem with the cummuntiy.71.48.14.38 21:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)tiffany

Socialism

What's up with "tyranny" and "theocracy" under "socialism"? These are autocratic forms, not socialism.

Buggy

This version was buggy, because it lacked an end command, it swallowed entire pages. I've reverted to the newest non-buggy version. Feel free to re-implement your changes in a non-buggy way. C mon 10:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have let it loose if I knew that it did that. I had no issues when I tested it. Thanks for the fix. --Lmbstl 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the bugs were introduced by a bad edit on 29 December by user:89.8.47.216. I repaired it.

This template is still buggy, the text doesn't show inside the border. But I'm not sure how to fix that... Pikiwedian 12:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean. Could you clarify? --Lmbstl 08:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Title clash with [hide]/[show]

The template's title "The Politics series" (!) currently clashes here with the [hide]/[show] link; is the latter necessary...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me what browser you are using? I do not see this problem at all. The hide link can be removed, though.--Lmbstl 02:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Firefox 2.0.0.1 on Windows XP SP2. At present the left square-bracket of the "[hide]" begins underneath the second "e" of "series"; I guess it's meant to start after "series" (thereby making the template a little wider)...?  (A width of 25%+ seems to suffice, although I'd then left-justify the "The Politics series" title...)  However, I wonder if a [show]/[hide] link is particularly useful here anyway...?  Regards, David (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Show/hide functionality has been removed. If it is more problematic than useful, then it serves no good purpose. --Lmbstl 08:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I just removed some alignings from the template. It still did not display correctly here (Windows XP, Internet Explorer 6). It parses correctly here now. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK here too. Regards, David (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) and David. --Lmbstl 03:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Alignment

Is it just me and my browser, or does tthe template aligment look uneven? The border around the table is not even. Thoughts? --Lmbstl 15:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Political economy is listed on the template - however, I'm not sure this is appropriate. All of the other items listed are a part of the subject matter of politics, or very closely related to it.

This is not the case with political economy. While it has "Political" in its name, that does not necessarily make it related to politics (the original meaning of "political economy" is what we now call "economics", and that is still the definition given in most references that I can find (eg. Encyclopedia Britannica).

In my view "Political economy" is only loosely related to politics, and no more closely related than similar social science subjects such as sociology and economics. I suggest that it is removed from the template, so that we keep the template for politics articles only.

Any comments? Enchanter 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Now done Enchanter 17:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

you are wrong there. political economy is the foundation of politics. 4 days is a very short time to wait for a change that removes one of the major topics of political science. --Buridan 20:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? At the moment, the Politics article does not mention political economy at all, and the high quality sources I have looked at don't mention political economy as being a "major" topic in political science. At the moment there is no context or explanation for the relationship between political economy and politics in the politics articles, nor any well sourced explanation of the point of view that you express above. Enchanter 11:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not mentioning political economy as a field of political science is strong indication that your source is biased. I'm pretty sure that I don't have to explain my view above, all one has to say is 'international political economy' is a subfield of political science, 'comparative political economy' is a subfield of political science and 'political economy' is one of the mother disciplines of politics, government and political science. if you don't find that to be common knowledge, then i suggest books.google.com, or even google.com. --Buridan 01:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I again propose removing political economy from the list. Any comments or objections (preferably backed up with relevant sources)? Enchanter 00:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Now done Enchanter 23:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me just take the "New Handbook of Political Science" edited by Robert Goodin and Hans Dieter-Klingeman (Oxford 1999). Of its nine parts, one, and its thirty-five chapters, four concern, Political Economy, with contribution of important political scientists like Alberto Alesina. That certainly merits the inclusion of Political Economy in the template. C mon 07:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Political economy is a subdiscipline of political science. For instance, there is a Political Economy organized section within the American Political Science Association.[1] Restoring the template now... --Jsorens 17:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Currently this template links to List of political scientists, a list which has questionable usefulness, considering it's a mass of redlinks and unsourced information. There's been talk about deleting the list, so I checked to see what's pointing to it, and this template seems to be the major source. Would anyone object to removing the "Political scientists" link from the template? --Elonka 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the list of political scientists and I spotted slightly over half a dozen redlinks. I do not see why a good list of political scientists should be removed from the template since if someone by chance wanted to know more about the people currently influencing politics and political thought around the world this list would be most helpful, especially in finding books and articles attributed to their authors. --User:WeakleyReport 3 March 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC).

Communism has no place on this template for the same reason capitalism has no place. Sure, all economic systems interact with their political matrix, but they are not interchangeable. Please don't confuse the two; that causes enough trouble in our discourse as it is. 206.169.57.10 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel as though the symbol of a ballot box properly conveys the concept of the field of Politics. The ballot box, as used in Democracy is most certainly a type of political device, however, the hammer and sickle of Communism or the dollar sign of capitalism are just as effective. Not that I think we should use any of those mentioned, I just feel as though there could be a more meaningful symbol to represent such a broad topic like Politics. I cannot think of any replacement suggestions other than a spectrum of some sort, or even a hierarchy of different political ideologies.

Hopefully some wonderful suggestions come forth, but kudos to anyone who manages to convince me that we should keep it as it is. Allong (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Add Ethics amongst Other topics. Mormegil 87.18.29.160 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)