Share to:

 

Template talk:WesternSahara-stub

Untitled

This flag isn't unanumously recognized as flag of WS. Its usage is inoccurate and misleading. Daryou 16:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Not misleading How exactly will users be mislead? If users want to know more about the relevant topics, they can click on the links provided. Justin (koavf) 16:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to your reasoning, a moroccan flag won't be misleading either. Daryou 17:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Yes it would Since Morocco is not Western Sahara, according to the reasoning of many sources, including the UN. Justin (koavf) 17:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the reasoning of many sources, including the UN, this flag isn't the flag of WS. Daryou 17:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Not necessarily The UN has never said that this isn't the flag of Western Sahara, since it's never said that anything was. All it has said is that the Sahara isn't Moroccan. Justin (koavf) 17:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN has never recognized the SADR. Daryou 17:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>The SADR has never applied to the UN So it's irrelevant. Justin (koavf) 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The SADR isn't recognized by 80% of the countries of the world, 50% of the countires that recognised SADR cancelled or froze this recognition. Daryou 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Who doesn't recognize it is irrelevant A lack of recognition is irrelevant - the U.S. doesn't have diplomatic ties with Iran, but that doesn't make their government illegitimate. Several Arab states refuse to recognize Israel, but it's still real. Justin (koavf) 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US recognises Iran, and 99% of the world countries recognize Israel, that's the difference. Daryou 07:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be any better to say "This Western Sahara or SADR article...", as that doesn't equate the two? The map (and I'd be happy to crop it if that's desired) is a less controversial and more neutral image than the flag, and ought to be used, I think. --Mairi 07:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>No problem with "or", but to be consistent, see Template:Taiwan-stub. Justin (koavf) 19:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be consistent and comply with WP neutrality principles. Daryou 19:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Consistency I am being consistent. I gave you an example that is similar. Now, you have to try to convince me that they are inherently different. Justin (koavf) 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The third party comment said exactly that "The map is a less controversial and more neutral image than the flag, and ought to be used", You should read other WPians comments, you know? Daryou 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point, about Template:Taiwan-stub. (FWIW, more countries recognize SADR than ROC, according to the respective articles. On the other hand, no one suggested using the map for Template:Taiwan-stub.) The other case I had in mind was Template:Cyprus-stub, which originally had a map as a more neutral image than the flag, after some discussion prior to its creation (although there's currently an anon who keeps putting the flag there, and not a good image of the flag for that matter either.) One other solution would be to have no image, as stub templates hardly require images. --Mairi 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the ROC is less recognized than SADR, it does actually control the whole territory of Taiwan. The situation is completely different in WS. SADR doesn't control the whole territory, using the flag of SADR to represent the whole territory of WS is misleading, inoccurate and biased for an encyclopedia. Daryou 22:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Did you even read the article at Republic of China? The ROC claims all of China, Tibet, Sinkiang, Mongolia, and Taiwan, so it controls a small percentage of its claim. The SADR controls a much higher percentage. Your argument is irrational and self-defeating. Justin (koavf) 22:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the flag used in the Template:Taiwan-stub is the chineese flag of the Taiwan province. I think that you know it since you use a different flag in your user page ;) . Daryou 22:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about That's the flag of the Republic of China, a rival government to the People's Republic of China. Justin (koavf) 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, is it the flag of Taiwan or China? You see that the Template:Taiwan-stub uses the ROC proposed flag of the whole China, but is used only in Taiwan related pages. The situation is by then completely different. We discussed the issue many times in the WS infobox conflict. Daryou 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

===>There is no agreed-upon "China" It's a complex issue, and clearly, you are not familiar with it, or you wouldn't even ask. Please read the articles China, Repbulic of China, People's Republic of China, and Taiwan. Justin (koavf) 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I SAID that the situation is completely different. We have already discussed the matter. Daryou 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

I've protected the template. Every change to a template that is in use on many articles causes problems for the template. Please resolve the problems here, rather than edit warring.

As it is, the flag is clearly going to cause a problem for some users. The map, however, is far too big for a stub icon. There is no reason why this stub even needs an icon, so for now, until some resolution can be reached, it hasn't got one.

For details on this page protection, see Wikipedia:Protected pages.

Grutness...wha? 05:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub icon

Okay - it looks like the dust has now settled. There seem to be three possible things to do as regards an icon for this template:

  1. use the flag,
  2. use a map, such as
  3. have no icon.

So as to avoid further edit warring, I'd like to call upon a vote here - feel free to add a support OR oppose vote to any of these three choices, as listed below. Please only vote oppose if you have a genuine reason for doing so (such as a fear of the icon showing political bias). After a couple of weeks it should be clear which of the choices is most acceptable, or at leqast narrow down the options. Feel free to mention this vote on any relevant wikipedia forums. My own opinion is that - unless there are objections - the flag would be betters, as it is more in keeping with other stub icons. If it is not acceptable, however, then the map is also a viable option (as is having no icon at all). Grutness...wha? 00:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: "Consistency" is not a reason in itself not to use a particular icon, as geo-stub icons are deliberately not consistent for a number of reasons. Some countries use flags, such as {{UK-geo-stub}}, others use maps, like {{Indonesia-geo-stub}}, and some even have combined map/flag icons (such as {{Belgium-geo-stub}} and {{Ukraine-geo-stub}}). Grutness...wha? 02:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about of course it would be better if the WS map had a transparent background, but i think thats doable. - FrancisTyers · 11:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an invitation to edit wars, I think.--E Asterion u talking to me? 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how there is only one "Flag of Western Sahara", and that Morocco doesn't recognise a "Western Sahara" entity, I can't see any reason not to have the flag. I think it would be reasonable to also have a "SouthernProvinces-stub", with a Moroccan flag, which could go on those articles which are to do with the parts occupied by Morocco. - FrancisTyers · 14:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icon

Support

  1. Koavf - This is consistent with what is done on Template:Taiwan-stub. Why should it be different here? The wording was specifically written to take a moderated stance on the topic and not assume a position, just like on that one. Also, the objections came from a single editor with notorious pro-Moroccan bias who has not edited for several weeks. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Nightstallion (?) Makes sense, mirrors Taiwan stub template.
Oppose
  1. Cpt. Morgan With a region that is so strongly claimed by two parties, and with non of the options being officialy recognized by the majority of the international community, using the flag representing only one of the two parties and the icon is not a neutral choice.

Map icon

Support

  1. Asterion. Though I have nothing against the RASD flag, I find the map more suitable for a controversial issue like this. This should prevent any possible edit wars.
  2. Cpt. Morgan As stub tags display a variety of different images, this map is very well suited to be used as an image here.
  3. Concur w/ Asterion and Cpt. Morgan. This would be my second choice after the no icon. Saharawis are geographically related to this map but not necessarily to the political flag. -- Szvest 11:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  4. Electionworld, in this case the most neutral option.
  5. Arre 20:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - I don't mind the flag either, but this should save us all some hassle.[reply]
Oppose
  1. Koavf - Inconsistent. Why should the ROC get displayed, but not the SADR? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Nightstallion (?) Inconsistent.

No icon

Support

  1. Cpt. Morgan. Stubs tags are mainly used by people who know how to use wikipedia and for categorization. IMO a stub does not need an image to be useful.
  2. In relation to neutrality, no icon would be the best solution of a complicated issue as this. -- Szvest 11:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  3. This is certainly the best solution on offer. And with luck, this could be the beginning of a general campaign to remove these unnecessary bandwidth-eating images from all stub tags. -- Visviva 12:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The map was resized to icon size. It is hardly a few Kb big. It is not as if the full size map is being hot-linked here. In any case, I understand your point, but wikipedia is a visual encyclopedia. Most people also visually associate the map with Western Sahara. Regards, --E Asterion u talking to me? 16:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Koavf - Inconsistent. Why should the ROC get displayed, but not the SADR? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Asterion - Most of the geo-stubs do have either a map or a flag. E Asterion u talking to me? 12:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Nightstallion (?) Even more inconsistent.
  4. Arre 20:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - That would be so terribly dull.[reply]

Icon

It's been a while since this was discussed, and there's still no icon on the Western Sahara template. I believe we should use Image:Flag of Western Sahara.svg. Yes, Morocco and others don't recognize Western Sahara independence, which this flag represents, but the flag does represent the region better than any other symbol. I believe an imperfect symbol is better than no symbol, especially since we have found no alternative. Who's with me? Foobaz·o< 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm against you, and so, I'm sure, would be WikiProject Stub sorting as a whole. Icons are not necessary on stub templates, and many stub types do not have them. This is specifically the case where having an icon is a controversial matter and could lead to edit warring. Whereas edit warring on an article causes some problems for that article, edit warring on a template causes problems for all the articles on which it is places and also places strain on Wkipedia's servers. This is the primary reason why no icon is placed on this template, and why none should be. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Western Sahara is a territory without specific feature, except it is a former Spanish colony. That's why it has no flag. Image:Flag of Western Sahara.svg is the flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, an unofficial state.
Obviously, grouping Western Sahara (a geographical region) and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (an unofficial state) is not NPOV.
So, I am favourable to the addition of a map icon, because that would dispel some ambiguity about this territory. --Juiced lemon 08:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan/ROC Did you notice the reference I made to Template:Taiwan-stub? Why didn't you change the flag and text there? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the same arguments as Juiced Lemon. The Republic of China is represented in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and International Olympic Committee (IOC). What about SADR? And also, why do we have to follow RC case? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROC and SADR The SADR is a member of the African Union;it has never applied to the IOC or WTO. We would follow the ROC case for consistency, wouldn't we? Also, this template is useful for SADR articles that are not directly related to Western Sahara and vice-versa, just like the ROC/Taiwan template. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the reason for that is to stub tag SADR articles that are not directly related to Western Sahara and vice-versa, then just use the template at its actual state. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No SADR-stub There is no SADR-stub template, and it would be redundant to make one, as the two categories would overlap in large measure. That's exactly why the ROC/Taiwan template is written as it is. Why should the ROC/Taiwan have one kind of template and the SADR/WS another? Shouldn't they be consistent? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe we should use the redundancy on the template when you yourself are talking about avoiding redundancies elswhere? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You lost me I don't understand your question, but let me put it this way: if there was a separate SADR-stub template, it would get used on virtually every Western Sahara-stub entry, and it would not have enough unique entries to justify its existence. Also, my question about the ROC and Taiwan still stands. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about ROC. It got its own talk page. Use this same template of SADR stub articles. Stll confused? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Forget it? Why would I forget the ROC? Isn't it a relevant example? Why should we apply one standard as a community there and a different one here? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not planning to bring the Palestinian case as an analogy. So keep the ROC there. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine Bring up Palestine; I don't care. I would be in favor of being consistent there, as well. So, please, answer my question. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to answer that particular question when the answer is that there is no related standard yet to be applied to such issues. See my detailed response below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Taiwan Island is not the Republic of China, and the Western Sahara is not the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. If you want a flag, create a specific template for the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. --Juiced lemon 15:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What? I didn't say anything about adding a flag to this template. What I said was "why don't you delete the flag from that template?" Also, why should there be an ROC/Taiwan template, but two separate templates for WS and the SADR? That doesn't make sense. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And why have 2 different templates. All countries have one. So whether the first or the second. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely my point Yes, all countries have one template. There should not be a separate ROC and Taiwan stub template, and there should not be a separate SADR and WS template. The reference to the SADR should be reinserted into the text of this template; creating a separate one for the SADR would be nonsense. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And since you argue not-stop using the ROC analogy than now i only have to refer you to Category:Palestine stubs. It says This category is for stub articles relating to Palestine (Palestinian Authority). Gotcha? There are no standard yet in Wikipedia. You should discuss the issue in a project scope. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Okay, that's why that stub category was created. This stub was created (by me) for stubs related to WS and SADR. If someone makes a stub category relating to Palestine, but not the PNA, that's fine with me as well. So, are you advocating using a different standard between the ROC and the SADR? If so, why? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, i am advocating that all articles follow the WS and Palestine and all the rest of the world's examples. You must explain to us why ROC is treated differently. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROC example The Taiwan-stub has that text for an obvious reason, which I explained above in relation to the SADR: there would be massive overlap between Taiwan stubs and ROC stubs, and there is no point in having two separate templates. What do you mean by "all the rest of the world's examples?" Do you have any others in mind? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to have 2 templates as we have far less quantity of articles compared w/ ROC or Palestine case. Therefore, there is no need for an explanation. By the way, you haven't explained why won't you support a stub {{PNA stub}}. Isn't it the governing body of Palestinians? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two templates We don't need two templates, because, as you mentioned, each country gets one. Also, there are not two templates in the case of the ROC and Taiwan, as you just mentioned. So we should do the same thing here we do there, and change this text back to saying "WS or SADR-related articles," just like on the "Taiwan or ROC-related articles" template. I suppose I didn't initially understand what you wrote about the Palestine stubs category; I'm in favor of the Palestine-stub referring to West Bank/Gaza articles, PNA articles, PLO articles, etc. with the Palestinian flag. That would make complete sense to me. It would make no sense to have a PNA-stub template for exactly the reasons I mentioned before: there would be a lot of overlap and not enough unique entries to warrant exclusion. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before going further, do you know how many articles we have under the WS stub cat? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure 73. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 400 for ROC. You know what to do Justin, can you take this issue to a Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting to get more opinions? We can discuss there ROC, PAL and WS. Indeed, it is set to discuss this kind of issues. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss what? Exactly what do you expect me to ask them? If it should include the "or SADR" wording? I'd be happy to talk there if you think it would be more fruitful. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss what we are discussing here. Maybe we do agree about looking for standards. So let's have a standard by discussing it at the approp place. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it done Doing it now. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 18:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perfect example of why disputed territories shouldn't in general have their own stub types. Taiwan-stub was also the subject of a long and bitter edit-war and is an extremely poor example to use for any stable stub-type. In fact, until it was mentioned on the talk page of WesternSahara-stub, I thought it had no icon, which was how it was when I last saw it. A better example would be Korea-stub, where a specific new design was created for a stub that clearly represented the whole of the Korean peninsula without being open to interpretations of partisanship. Grutness...wha? 00:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Where does that leave us, though? I don't know that there is a Korea-style solution to this issue. Do you have any suggestions on how to move forward? It still appears to me that there is an odd and arbitrary double-standard being applied. (posted on Template talk:WesternSahara-stub and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Dispute_about_the_wording.2Fscope_of_a_stub)-Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It leaves us with the solution normally used in such cases. There is no reason on earth why a stub template has to have an icon, and many do not, especially those where disputes may arise. This template has managed well enough wothout an icon in the past, and could easily do so again. Grutness...wha? 05:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Somehow, we're not communicating; I'm interested in the text and consequent scope of the stub, not the icon. Please re-read my original post. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. perhaps having this under the heading "Icon" was an odd move, then. The template was originally at SADR-stub. This was changed to WesternSahara-stub and the (redirect from) SADR-stub was deleted, as it was open to problems relating to POV. WesternSahara-stub should, theoretically, be for Western Sahara, as the name implies. Since any articles relating to the SADR are to some extent or another automatically connected in topic to Western Sahara, it seems unnecessary to also explicitly include it in the wording of the template. Therefore, not mentioning SADR in the wording of the template is not restricting the scope of the template in any way, but is decreasing the risk of any problems relating to potential political bias. if you can think of any articles on SADR that do not in some way relate to Western Sahara, I'll be willing to alter my views on the subject, but unless you can I don't see any reason why SADR should be mentioned on the template. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kembali kehalaman sebelumnya