History Template‑class

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 articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Malaysia Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics 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.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

There's been a rv on the word expulsion first into withdrawal and then later separation. Though the word withdrawal and separation are less controversial, it's an expulsion nonetheless. The Parliament at that time explicitly voted to expel Singapore. It was the actual verb used back in the Parliament in 1965. Lee Kuan Yew usede the same verb IIRC in his memoir, "The Singapore Story". Moreover, the term "separation of singapore" doesn't describe what happened in 1965. It doesn't sound right either since a person without proper background in Malaysian and Singaporean history would think "separation of singapore" would refer to singapore being separated by itself (e.g. one Singapore into Singapore A and Singapore B), instead of being separated from something (i.e. the Federation). Expulsion of Singapore however describes the situation succinctly. __earth ^(Talk) 16:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about secession? It seems like a good compromise to me. The problem here is that although it was a secession/separation de jure, in reality, it was a de facto expulsion. Johnleemk | Talk 11:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template is too long. There are too much specific details, and not important. We should only keep the events that are significant and last for a long period. User talk:96.229.179.106 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 07:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP editor above. Good to see that someone has now done it. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can anyone here please help me? I need help in the data. It seems that it can only add until 35 data. I want to add more. User:Williamteoh97 ^(Talk) 12:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted. This template is already large, and should contain only the most important points of history. A list of every incident belongs at Timeline of Malaysian history. CMD (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This template is currently over 2 of my screens in length. While there's no maximum length, to me this feels quite excessive. I have a few ideas regarding what could be cut down.

• In Early Kingdoms, I suggest only including kingdoms of which a great deal is known. This would mean removing entries like the Kedah Kingdom (the link of which is actually to the History of Kedah article rather than a standalone), and long-forgotten places like Chi-tu, Gangga Negara, and Pan Pan.
• In Muslim states, I don't think Bulungan Sultanate should be included. While I wouldn't agree with a strict hardlining by geography, Bulungan barely included any of modern Malaysia and its importance seems to be subsidiary to Sulu's, which is also included.
• The Colonial era section covers entities like the previous sections, which is sensible, but I don't think that Syburi and the British Military Administrations should be included. The first is just a short period of one state's history somewhat subsidiary to Japanese Occupation as a whole, and the second was also just a shortlived inter-period which again seems to just fit under the wider war period.
• In Independence I really don't think any single documents should be included, which the first 5 links are. They signalled new political eras, but by themselves don't seem to fit in a summary. Similarly, I don't see that small flare-ups of territorial disputes, such as the Lahad Datu incident and various Spratley incidents, as fitting into an overarching history summary. They're very specific events, and their inclusion seems to be a perfect example of wp:recentism.

Thoughts? CMD (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As your suggest.. I have remove some of them and replace the documents with the "celebration day" article. I think that looks fine now. — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ^ʜᴜʜ? 09:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]