Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-12/Country templates

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Country templates
Status	Closed
Request date	12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	See left

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Template talk:Africa topic

Who is involved?

What is the dispute?

Differing theories exist on how best to incorporate unrecognised states into a navigation template listing sovereign states and other entities. Some editors have suggested that including such states at all is pushing an imbalanced point of view. Others have made the same argument for not including them. Various conciliatory methods have been proposed, but have not acheived consensus. The case specifically applies to Somaliland at present, although it will most likely have implications on similar scenarios in the future.

What would you like to change about this?

Various versions of the navbox in question can be displayed in the Discussion section below in order to show the different methods proposed so-far of dealing with the issue. The outcome would need to correspond with the following:

How do you think we can help?

While it is Africa's templates that are the subject of the current dispute, the debate over how best to incorporate non-sovereign entities into topic templates has taken place multiple times in the past in almost all other geographical divisions used. The outcome of this debate will most likely have implications upon counterpart templates elsewhere (more can be found at Category:Country templates by continent):

Therefore, it would be most productive at the present time to consider broadening the discussion into how best to address the issue across the board, which is the inclusion of all states listed on this page into their respective navboxes divided by region. I would like to see if we can reach a general consensus on the matter, thus perhaps establishing an unofficial policy of some sort—or at least something for future identical discussions to refer back to. Subsequently, given the broadness of the issue, I would recommend encouraging more editors to comment wherever possible.

Mediator notes

Since this is more of a question that you're trying to find an answer for than an argument over content, may I suggest a Request for Comment? If you go that route, you're likely to get several editors involved with some new ideas. The Wordsmith^Communicate 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're doing a RfC aswell, but the debate so-far has been heated, and will most likely continue that way. Neither side of the disagreement seems willing to back down or even compromise. I feel a casual, neutral mediator might have a more authoratative voice over the matter's progress. Night w (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion