Wikipedia talk:Western Sahara Infobox/Vote

message: If anything except option 1 wins there is going to be trouble.Geni 16:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Threats don't work well on Wikipedia -- so I hope that was not a threat.  --Nlu 17:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The micronation-related vandals have all been dealt with fairly well.  --Nlu 20:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you explain exactly how western sahara a micronation exactly ? Anthere 19:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And?  What does that have to do with whether Morocco's flag should go on there?  --Nlu 03:27, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uk flag is not on the sealand page.Geni 08:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Micronations

message: 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)
thread_title: Vote count

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-arguments

message: woohoo I found it! Morocco's flags for the territories in W. Sahara:  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:  and heres Laayoune:  but they dont have Es Smara. Astrokey44 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moroccan sub-national flags