This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Infoboxes 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.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
@Nihonjoe: I think the reason of this revert of yours is inappropriate. As I mentioned, some people naively think administrating means having the territorial sovereignty so I added the note to clarify the misconception. Why on earth is the note "irrelevant and pointless"? Did you read the note and my edit summary carefully? I would like to see a reasonable explanation from you. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is pointless clutter. The purpose of an an infobox is to briefly present key facts. There are many ways some reader might misunderstand something, but the infobox is not the place to explain them. Explanatory detail belongs in article text.
In this case, the words "Disputed islands" at the top of the infobox inform the reader that there is a dispute about aspects of ownership, and they link to the Territorial dispute article for detail. Given that, the reader can expect the headings "Administered by" and "Claimed by" to mean just that and not necessarily any more. Kanguole09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds so simple. Unfortunately, not all people are able to interpret it correctly. A person I discussed with at the Chinese Wikipedia simply thinks that the administrator is the owner. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who considers the UK's claim to 'administer' Rockall simply laughable, reluctantly I have to agree with Kanguole: the infobox is to summarise, not to provide a platform on which to construct a fork of the content.:
(While trying to WP:AGF on the part of Matt Smith's Chinese correspondent, it is difficult not see disingenuity on their analysis. The Government of China claims sovereignty over islets and reefs that are in the outer territorial waters of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Phillipines, according to its nine dash line principle. By artificially changing them into islands (which is irrelevant in international law), it now administers them (military administration). That still does not make them Chinese territory, might is not right. --Red King (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although there can be multiple definitions for "Chinese", I don't identify myself as one. Instead, I identify myself as a Taiwanese. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
_-_The_Noun_Project.svg){kind=small}
