Cannabis Ruderalis

Content deleted Content added
Rob984 (talk | contribs)
Line 27: Line 27:
::: You address a theoretically interesting case, but is it also a practical one? I notice we did briefly mention a similar issue in that discussion back then ("islands whose sovereignty is claimed by two states but that are administered by yet a third state that doesn't actually claim sovereignty"), but didn't have any pertinent examples. Do you know of cases to which this applies? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
::: You address a theoretically interesting case, but is it also a practical one? I notice we did briefly mention a similar issue in that discussion back then ("islands whose sovereignty is claimed by two states but that are administered by yet a third state that doesn't actually claim sovereignty"), but didn't have any pertinent examples. Do you know of cases to which this applies? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 17:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
::::Although it is theoretically possible, I haven't seen one actual case. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 01:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
::::Although it is theoretically possible, I haven't seen one actual case. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 01:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

== Can we merge this into Infobox Islands? ==

Just seems like a maintenance burden and cause of inconsistency. [[Crimea]] uses the standard islands infobox (which is also used for peninsulas) plainly because the header doesn't show "disputed island" (which it isn't). But it mostly it is able to do the same thing anyway. You could add the "claimed by" and "administered by" sections very easily. And also an option to show the "Disputed x" header. [[User:Rob984|Rob984]] ([[User talk:Rob984|talk]]) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:33, 5 April 2017

Colour

Hi Nihonjoe. Template:Infobox Islands uses grey. The green colour is rather odd and makes the template stand out from the rest of the page which looks unsightly. Wikipedia is blue and grey, so I'm not sure why the template should stand out in a different colour unless there is specific reason (only example I can think of is political parties). That said, if you don't like the change and don't care for consistency with Template:Infobox Islands, then feel free to revert. Rob984 (talk) 23:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Reply:Rob984 Luckily, I noticed this. If you want my attention, use {{ping}} or leave a message on my talk page. It's a different color because it's not the same as the regular islands infobox. It should stand out to clue-in people that it's not the same. It was made that color intentional. Also, the color scheme of the site in general is irrelevant to the color of the infobox. There are many infoboxes which are different colors (or change colors) depending on various things. However, as a compromise, I have changed back only the top section. This leaves the majority of the sections grey, but still allows the template to draw attention to the difference between the two templates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 04:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The administrating country should be allowed in the "Claimed by" section

The current instruction text in the "Country parameters" section says that country claim parameter should excluding the administrating country, if it has already been specified with "country=".

However, I think that instruction text is misleading because administrating does not necessarily imply claiming. There are many cases in which the administrator does not claim territorial sovereignty. For example, lease, condominium, concession, mandate, and military occupation (in some cases).

Since the aforementioned instruction text incorrectly links administrating with claiming, I propose removing that text. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Calling Kanguole, who cited the aforementioned instruction text and removed the administrating country from the "Claimed by" section in an article, in case he has different opinions on this proposal. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This text was added as a result of this discussion between User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and User:Nihonjoe.
The documentation for |country= says Use this parameter only if one of the contenders is known to exert exclusive factual control on the ground. In any case, putting all the details of the controlling claimant twice is both data redundancy and a waste of screen space. Kanguole 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Their discussion did not take the examples I mentioned into account. But for some reason, I decide to cease this discussion for now. If one day I think this discussion needs to be re-opened, I would do that. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You address a theoretically interesting case, but is it also a practical one? I notice we did briefly mention a similar issue in that discussion back then ("islands whose sovereignty is claimed by two states but that are administered by yet a third state that doesn't actually claim sovereignty"), but didn't have any pertinent examples. Do you know of cases to which this applies? Fut.Perf. 17:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although it is theoretically possible, I haven't seen one actual case. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge this into Infobox Islands?

Just seems like a maintenance burden and cause of inconsistency. Crimea uses the standard islands infobox (which is also used for peninsulas) plainly because the header doesn't show "disputed island" (which it isn't). But it mostly it is able to do the same thing anyway. You could add the "claimed by" and "administered by" sections very easily. And also an option to show the "Disputed x" header. Rob984 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply