Template talk:Africa topic/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Template:Africa topic. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Post-Debate Discussion
It is not appropriate for a template to favor the Constitutive theory of statehood over theDeclarative theory of statehood or vice versa. Please provide feedback on what that category would be rather than suppressing articles you disagree with from a navigation tool. Maybe "States with Limited Recognition" for SAR and "States with no Recognition" for Somaliland?RevelationDirect (talk) 23:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see your logic, Revelation, but then say for the Europe template, in which section would Transnistria go?
- If we were to favour neither theory, then all entities without universal or near universal recognition must be lumped together into one category. Note: For Wikipedia, we take UN membership as near universal recognition, even if that is not always the case(ex. Israel). For the Declarative theory, its if the entity fits the predetermined criteria, then it qualifies to be included, regardless of recognition(of any kind). One might think of it this way; if it looks like a shoe, and has shoe-like qualities and acts like a shoe, then it is most likely a shoe. Because of this, while we can distinguish between the amount of recognition a state has received, as on the list of States with Limited Recognition page, that's really what that page is for and (i think) it explains it well. Here on a template, we frankly don't, and shouldn't, make room for an explanation(we already link to the relevant page), or an endless string of sections, that's why we group states into two sections, as on the List of sovereign states Page. Outback the koala (talk) 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with two categories, as in the List of sovereign states but I'm also open to adding a third if it allows other editors to have their input/viewpoints factored in. Unfortunately, the edit history of the templates reflects the successful censorship of a taboo subject rather than an improved navigation tool.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's neither necessary nor practical to have yet another section. It would pose problems for other situations with technicality issues, like Outback mentioned. Night w (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I concur. sephia karta | di mi 14:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's neither necessary nor practical to have yet another section. It would pose problems for other situations with technicality issues, like Outback mentioned. Night w (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm fine with two categories, as in the List of sovereign states but I'm also open to adding a third if it allows other editors to have their input/viewpoints factored in. Unfortunately, the edit history of the templates reflects the successful censorship of a taboo subject rather than an improved navigation tool.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Flags of Africa
I don't know if there is an official position on this but wouldn't it be nice if the template Flags of Africa (actually every "flags of" template) included tiny pics of the flags by their links. It would help to quickly identify a flag you are looking for. --Error (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if that's possible without simultaneously having the flags appear on every unrelated transclusion aswell. You could always just create a separate template specifically for flags. Night w (talk) 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)