Template talk:History of Thailand

Inclusion of Haripunchai Dvaravati and Srivijaya

I cut the Mon and Malay kingdoms of Haripunchai, Dvaravati, and Srivijaya from this list as (1) they aren't really part of Thai history as such; (2) they are already referenced from the Early history of Thailand article; (3) they don't fit well in the narrative series made by the other articles. I'm open to other opinions though. Gdr 10:21, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

... and then User:Ahoerstemeier made almost the same change! I'm happier now that there is the "Regional history" subheading. Gdr 13:19, 2004 Oct 19 (UTC)

Background colouring

To restate my opinion (with which User:Sodacan disagrees), the red-white-blue background colouring is not helpful. It doesn't serve a real purpose, makes the text harder to read and makes it impossible to recognise the links. I believe that the standard default template colours should be followed. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reconfigured the template using {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}, added Peopling of Thailand and removed the background colouring, since Sodacan didn't explain why the colours should stay, and no other reservations were raised. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Peopling of Thailand

Somebody who knows how to work with this template should add Peopling of Thailand to it, and add the template to the article. --Pawyilee (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving Template:History of Thailand‎, and adding Peopling of Thailand to it. I added the template to the article, but, rather than Related topics, would prefer to see it under Prehistory and Early history. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Military history

Military history of Thailand and template missing:

• Naresuan (mainly about wars 1563 - 1605; Royal Thai Armed Forces Day, 18 January, commemorates one of his victories.)
• Siamese revolution of 1688
• Haw wars (1865 - 1890)

--Pawyilee (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sidebar vs navbox format

Given that most of the main articles listed in this template now have infoboxes, the sidebar format is no longer best suited here. I suggest deprecating the template in its current form and a migrating to a new template in navbox format. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: I've created Template:History of Thailand navbox, changed most uses to the navbox, and marked this template as deprecated. I haven't yet updated the articles where this template was the single top item, seeing as it would leave the article leads as a wall of text. These should be modified case-by-case, with images or other material used to fill the spot as appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

can't we use both of them? i will try to smaller the template Lalalulilalia (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

We shouldn't be using both in the same article, as that would be redundant. There's been some recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 21#Sidebars (navboxes) should NOT be used in the lead where consensus was leaning against the placement of sidebars in the lead section (at the top of the article or after the infobox). Your collapsed version does help address the clutter issue, though, and it could be a viable option for placement lower in the article. (The image could also be changed or removed altogether, since it's just decorative and doesn't convey any information.) You could try changing the template back and moving it lower in the articles, and we can see how they turn out. Please make sure that the template doesn't cause WP:SANDWICHING with article images. And regarding your comment on my talk page aobut mobile users, if I recall correctly neither sidebars or navboxes are displayed on mobile view, so the point is moot. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)