Template talk:Anarchism

Usage guideline
First of all, let me congratulate Cast 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 of Template:Anarchism sidebar. I can think of a few potential cases: In any case, I think it's important we use the two templates consistently. Any thoughts? Skomorokh incite 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Articles such as Haymarket Riot which are particularly cluttered with images and other sidebar material.
 * Stub articles in which Template:Anarchism sidebar would compete with even one image for sidebar space.
 * Articles that are not directly related to anarchism such that Template:Anarchism sidebar would give undue 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 the Anarchism Portal link, thus drawing a reader's attention. This is meant to also replace the Template: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)/¯)
 * And thank you for your kind words. It's nice to be appreciated.--Cast (talk) 10:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks professional and the little flag is cool lookin too. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.
 * And Gwen, thank you for your appreciation.--Cast (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. Skomorokh  incite 05:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Propose adding Class struggle
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)
 * So it's discussed it on the other template talk page, but may as well mention here that I've added it. Chaikney (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for future reference, content discussions take place on the sidebar talkpage; this is mirror (see notice above). Skomorokh  21:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding Polycentric law?
Would it be a School of thought or a theory & practice? 98.246.62.216 (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Theory and practice; it's a concept, not an ideology (the ideology would be "polycentrism", or panarchism). Skomorokh,  barbarian  15:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Make the navbar black
I made the navbar black because it is the color of anarchism. Anyway someone deleted it because it was "undiscussed", so lets discuss it...Mangokeylime (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * source for the colour? I would say black on white is just as applicable.  in any event, the default is fine. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Highighting the 3 main schools
I though about making bold the 3 original schools of though, wich would include mutualism, what you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogat (talk • contribs) 02:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2018
Change group featuring notable anarchists, in order to include Étienne de La Boétie,

From: GrnBlck (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime Public  ( open channel ) 12:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Affinity groups
Hi,, 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 )

''"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)
 * , I think the current version is more correct. Sincerely Yours, Гармонический Мир (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , what you think of it? Ogat  18:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In general, Wikipedia tries to follow the precedence set by reliable, secondary sources. So if we're going to classify "Anarcho-syndicalism, Synthesis anarchism, Platformism, Union of egoists" as types of affinity 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. czar  19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could Afaq - Section J.3 - What kinds of organisation do anarchists build?, 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? Ogat  16:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 a reliable 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. czar  21:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Bloated
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.) czar  23:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , for these purposes collapsed state of template exists. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 use collapsible groups, but I'd wager that even that is overkill. czar  01:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, should we set the template to collapse by default in the interim? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 06:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. czar  10:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's why I just said for the interim, while folks work on deciding what to prune. Would there be any objection to that? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I already voiced it and MOS: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. czar  05:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Crypto-'anarchism'
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)