Wikipedia talk:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote

Comment

I think that the current survey is too restrictive. Options leave very little room for compromise as options 1 and 2 entirely deny the very existence of the other party. Which is not frankly what our encyclopedia is about. Are they some middle solutions ? I would suggest that each option include an actual example of the template for visible comparison by all voters. Maybe, in doing this, other mixed solutions might be found ?

Could each party include a Western Sahara Infobox/Option 1, Western Sahara Infobox/Option 2, Western Sahara Infobox/Option 3 etc...

Anthere 07:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the inclusion.

I am still in favor of yet a fourth option -- an info box that includes both SADR and Morocco. However, I'm not skillful enough with infoboxes to do one. Would it be possible for someone to create one and include it as an option? --Nlu 15:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not myself. I tried to do such a box this morning and ended up deleting it. I am not able to do such infoboxes myself. But if you have another proposal, at least add it and explains it in details. Thanks Anthere

Micronations

If anything except option 1 wins there is going to be trouble.Geni 16:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Threats don't work well on Wikipedia -- so I hope that was not a threat. --Nlu 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no it's a prediction. There have been past (how shall I put this) issues over micronations. The most obvious example would be sealand. Obviously in the case of pretty much every micronation their existance is dissputed so this vote could be seen as a president.Geni 17:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The micronation-related vandals have all been dealt with fairly well. --Nlu 20:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain exactly how western sahara a micronation exactly ? Anthere 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's isn't. It is however if being recognised by 44 nations doesn't get your flag in the info box why should being recognised by no one get you your flag in the infobox? You see the problem.Geni 19:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Morocco's is in effective control. It doesn't mean that it is right, but it does mean that it is the status quo. --Nlu 20:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

plently of suposed micornations have real nations in effective control. Even sealand would be effected by this if they did something that was a criminal offence in the UK and the police became involved.Geni 00:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And? What does that have to do with whether Morocco's flag should go on there? --Nlu 03:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uk flag is not on the sealand page.Geni 08:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A micronation is a self-proclaimed government, analogous to, but without the real-world importance of, groups like the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. As such, their flags deserve pride of place on their articles, but not on the articles of territories they may "claim"; for example Rockall does not have an infobox with the flag of Waveland at the top.--Pharos 09:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara is much different to Sealand and these other "micronations" - for one thing it has a 260,000 population. It also appears on most atlases as a separate country. - its also about the same size as Morocco itself, so its hardly a tiny micronation within Morocco Astrokey44 23:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vote count

I might be a moron, but I don't understand this sentence:

The option with the highest value of support/total votes (total vote of each option independenlty) will be kept.

Could someone please clarify? Arre 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eheh, and I still rephrased it several times :-)

Example

Option 1 : 1 approval, 5 against : %support = 1/6

Option 2 : 5 approval, 10 against : %support = 5/15

Option 3 : 1 approval, 3 against : %support = 1/4

Option 3 will be kept

Anthere 04:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation of votes

There may be a confusion, some users add a support comment only under the options of their choices, others add comments under every option including support and opposition. By then the last ones (who use 4 voices) have more power in the final result than first ones (who uses less than 4). I think that only supports may be calculated or consider that every user who didn't vote under an option opposes it, in this last option every user have exactly 4 voices. What do you think? And what about neutral comments, should they be calculated half a point? Daryou 18:15, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Daryou

How interesting we would be in complete agreement on election rules, of all subjects...

The sentence I quoted above says that the count is about "support" votes, so that seems pretty clear. What I can't figure out though, is if they're supposed to be divided by the total number of votes for the option (including "opposed" etc) or only support votes.

If opposition and neutral votes are included in the "total votes"-number, then of course it makes sense to make opposition votes (and I will have to make some more). I hope not, but I do think the opposition votes are quite interesting as comments and should be kept for that reason.

Arre 18:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with ARRE, oppositions should be considered as comments, only supports (and neutral votes maybe) should be calculated. What do you think? Cheers. Daryou 18:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides that oppositions are to be considered as comments? This is illogical!!! Where on earth oppositions are considered as comments?! And where on earth neutral votes are being counted?! Please revise your rules. Svest 21:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Hey, calm down. We were both just asking, since we don't know. Personally, I think it would be better if oppositions don't count. Normally, you vote FOR something, and by implication against the alternatives. I agree completely that neutral votes should not be counted as for/against anything, since they are neutral. But I do not understand if non-support-votes (opposed & neutral) are to be used in calculating the total proportion of votes per alternative? Any clarifications of this would be appreciated. Arre 21:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the tone Arre. As per your comments, the option with more support votes wins. Agree! Now, in case of equal support votes, you should apply the goal average or as Wikipedia calls it Goal differential. Hence, you should consider the oppose votes:

Option Mercedes: 1 support / 5 oppose (-4)
Option Manchester United: 2 support / 10 oppose / 3 neutral (-8)
Option Mickey Mouse: 3 support / 11 oppose / 1 neutral (-8)
Option Madonna: 1 support / 0 oppose (+1)
Option Moon: 3 support / 10 oppose / 200 neutral (-7)

The winner in this case is Moon though it draws on support votes with Mickey Mouse. -- Svest 21:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Ok. Daryou 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then I get it. Thank you! Arre 23:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding and sorry again for my first comment. -- Svest 23:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

no problem, obviously we misunderstood each other. Arre 23:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the very hot opinions on the matter, I think oppositions should be taken into account. Whether by a percentage or by a differential does not matter, but a solution with many supports but also many opposition strike me as not being a very good solution in this case. I'd prefer a solution everyone feels lucky warm toward, but at least won't start another edit war within a couple of month.... Consensus is also this : not having the solution fitting best everyone, but being a solution everyone can grumble but live with...

don't you think ?

Anthere 04:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the system Svest put forth is better (easier to understand and predict), but you called the poll, so you decide. The important thing is everybody gets it, so that no-one loses just because they didn't place their opposition votes strategically enough. Also, I think we need to know if there is any significance to "weak" or "strong" votes in your system, and if "neutral" votes count in calculating %-support? I don't want to sound too critical or anything, but I really wasn't sure about the rules... :-) Arre 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem to using the Svest system if you prefer. Both are taking into account oppose votes, so I am fine with it. I suggest we do not take neutral into account - they are a nice information along the way though, but I see not how they could fit into Svest system... I suggest we do not use strong and weak difference, except if we come to equality ;-) However, I feel that it is interesting to know along the way that if the solution found in the end has received several very strong opposals, we might have a solution in terms of "vote", but editors real mad in the end. More "neutral" editors might then decide to lean one way or another... hmmm, no ? Or is it too subtil ? ;-) ant

Hi, Just onother question, have we the right to respond to every user comment under his one? I think thta the best place to do it if any need is this talk page. I trust Nlu's good faith but I think that commenting other voters comments in the vote page is confusing and may make a mess. Thanks :). Daryou 08:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you have made by far the most comments so far... :-) I am not responding, precisely because it will be too much to read, and anyway, we've had these arguments before on other talk pages if someone is interested. Arre 01:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Option 4b

Hi, I have many objections about the Option 4b:

The UN don't recognize Western Sahara as an independent state (unless you give me evidence, and there isn't any). This is definitively not true.
The title of the infobox has to be "WS" not "SADR".
This infobox uses the word "occupied" witch is pro-polisario biased, refused by Morocco and absolutly not used in Minurso and UN Secretary General reports (witch are accepted by both sides);
Information about Morocco is ommited, the only information kept is its flag, saying that this version includes both flags and both information isn't true: It includes both flags but no information about Morocco.

I do agree with Arre: major changes should only appear as new options, the option 4b is a major change from Option 4 and should be considered as a new option. Daryou 16:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly clear on what the text is in the different infoboxes, I've just thought about the basic options (no flag, all flags, Moroccan or Sahrawi). I think this poll should be, simply, about the principle. If alternative four wins, then we should have both flags, and equal information for both countries. Language should conform to the language used in the rest of the article, whatever that is.
I won't get involved in this now, but I will support Daryou in changing it into a neutral version if it is not, if it wins, after the polls are done. At the same time, I probably won't agree with him on other changes he wants to make, but let's get to that then.
As far as I'm concerned, the infobox can of course be altered to better conform to WP standards after this poll too -- as long as the basic premise that we are voting on isn't changed without consensus or a new poll. Arre 01:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Option 4 "wins", witch version will be used 4 or 4b? Daryou 17:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use 4), you have some valid points about my version being biased. It was unintentional, but I think that most people probably voted for 4 not 4b, and its much better with the flags next to each other. The problem though with both versions is that it should really be Morocco's flag and coat of arms that they made for the Western Sahara - i.e. a flag of a territory, like the flag/coat of arms on the British territory of Falkland Islands - although they may not have made one? Astrokey44 13:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arguments

I have a question about the vote entered by Aalaeddine:

Strong Oppose [to Western Sahara flag]. The Moroccan sahara (Western Sahara) is a Moroccan territory and will always still be a Moroccan territoryAalaeddine 08:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

This does not even present an argument, neither on Wikipedia policies or on the history of WS, it's just nationalism. Does such a vote really count?

Please note that I think that if a Sahrawi entered a vote along the lines of "Long live Sahara", I would question that too. And anyway, its purely academic, since the Sahrawi flag wouldn't win anyway. Arre 09:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a question of nationalism but instead a question of weather it was the only contribution of the user or not. A comment was put on the vote page after his vote. -- Svest 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}[reply]

Well, that too :-) But I'm just curious about the principle. Can you argue anything (or nothing, for that matter) and still have a vote in this? On the one hand, maybe you shouldn't have to write a statement along with every vote. On the other, I don't think its fair to let ten emotional outbursts override nine carefully formulated arguments. I certainly can see the merits of both systems, but I don't know which one generally applies. Is there normally a rule on this? Arre 13:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting at wikipedia such at votes for deletion is usually based on consensus, rather than just numbers. So for instance 10 votes by experienced editors outweighs 20 first time anonymous votes etc. I guess its hard to define sometimes Astrokey44 02:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan sub-national flags

woohoo I found it! Morocco's flags for the territories in W. Sahara: [1] It seems there are actually three flags because Morocco has divided the territory into three - "An administrative reform in Morocco was carried out in 1976. [Flags and arms were created.] in Western Sahara 3 wilayas: Boujdour, Es Smara and Laayoune." Here's the flag of Boujdour: [2] and heres Laayoune: [3] but they dont have Es Smara. Astrokey44 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC) ..and there was further changes in the territories, became 4 wilayas in 1983 with the flag of Dakhla added [4], then another in 1990 with Oued ed Dahab added (no flag shown). Here's the coat of arms for the Moroccan territories: [5] Astrokey44 13:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Why not put them on a special page? Call it "Western Sahara Regions (Moroccan version)" or something, and let it deal only with the formal attributes of Moroccan rule (flags, names of governors, local elections, coats of arms etc). Although it should of course duly note the sovereignty dispute. Then it can be linked to Morocco, Western Sahara and any other relevant page. Arre 13:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you can have articles on separate points of view, maybe the regions should be included in the Western Sahara article. I thought that maybe all 5 regional flags/coat of arms could go in the infobox, instead of the Moroccan flag/coat of arms. Astrokey44 03:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of having an infobox, if it's going to be so cluttered? The regional flags/coats of arms would be better on pages about the regions, whether it's one page or separate pages. The regions do exist as administrative units - having a page on them could be done without endorsing their legitimacy. JPD [[User talk:JPD|(talk)]] 10:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the regions should at least be mentioned on the infobox, because the Moroccan view is that there isnt even a place 'Western Sahara' - its 4 or 5 separate regions that are part of Morocco Astrokey44 15:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Results

Option 1 : 4 support / 9 oppose (-5)

Option 2 : 1 support / 12 oppose (-11)

Option 3 : 13 support / 3 oppose (+10)

Option 4 : 8 support / 7 oppose (+1)

I think it is clear Option 3 is the least controversial one, so should be retained. It could potentially be used in similar situations for other disputed territories. I will now protect the opinion page and unprotect the article one. Please respect the result. I am aware two editors will not be happy with it, but I trust they will recognise this is at least the way which seems the least problematic to the community, even if it is not perfect for everyone. Anthere