Template talk:Kosovorecognition

Why does this exist

Hear me out I made this template when I realized that List of countries, List of sovereign states, list of unrecognized countries, and foreign relations of Kosovo all had different numbers for how many states recognize the Republic of Kosovo. Updating this one line will update all of them simultaneously. What do you think? If it doesn't work as-is, what can be done to make it better? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See also Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo_is_recognised_by_47_-_Samoa. There have been several requests across several talk pages to update this number and sometimes it is weeks and months out of date. With this template, it can stay synchronized. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..if I can be honest, I am not sure if a template is going to work, since we are still having a problem on figuring out how many actually said yes to Kosovo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Granted But wouldn't it be better to update all of these references simultaneously rather than have them outdated and strewn about the encyclopedia? Even if the numbers aren't accurate, they're precise, rather than scattershot and wrong. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea seems nice, but wouldn't it be better to link the template to International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo rather than Foreign relations of Kosovo? Colchicum (talk) 07:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How so? Since the foreign relations article is about the states that recognize Kosovo, it made the most sense to me; I suppose either one works. Personally, I'm a fan of merging the two anyway, but that's neither here nor there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, because the first place where the states are listed is the former article. See also the long-standing usage in the article Kosovo (second paragraph), which has survived many revisions. Merging the two may be a good idea, but that's another issue. Colchicum (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen, as of now the states are not even listed in Foreign relations of Kosovo. Moreover, recognizing some entity and having diplomatic relations with it are two different things (albeit interconnected). Colchicum (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Maybe it should be semi-protected against the socks of Koov (talk · contribs). Colchicum (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Why does the template have to link to anything at all? Surely the article it's used in will contain links to any other relevant articles already. Bazonka (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wording

Rationale I have presently worded it "recognized by 47" so that this text can be inserted to read "Kosovo is:

• recognized by 47 states"
• recognized by 47 countries"
• recognized by 47 United Nations member states as well as the Republic of China"

etc. This is flexible enough to allow for variations in the sentences and the scope of the claim (i.e. does this include the ROC or Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, if they are relevant?) If someone is a real wizard, he may want to make some kind of !if statement to choose between "recognize" and "recognise" for American English and British English articles. I am not knowledgeable enough to do this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction to the 2008 declaration of independence by Kosovo has an archived consensus agreeing to use British English, due to it been a European related article. Ijanderson (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ijanderson about UK English, but with Justin about leaving the text as a minimum (maybe even just a number) so that the editor of each page can use the template with maximum flexibility, which I's most recent edits do not allow. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The text should be minimum, just a number. Then each article can spell words according to their agreed consensus. Ijanderson (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have made the template just a number so that articles can have their own spellings of words. Also it is only the numbere which changes, so this makes sense. Ijanderson (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Extension

This initiative is a good one (you see, Justin, I can be positive about your contributions ;-) ). I would even suggest, if technically possible, to generalize the template to, simply, 'recognition' and have all states where recognition is not general in it. The template would then have a series of two-fields entries:

[country or territory]|[number of recognitions]

and would be called in the pages by {{recognition|[country or territory]}}, rendering the number recorded into the corresponding [number of recognitions] field. I'm not sure this is feasible but that would avoid having one template per country having a recognition issue. Clpda (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

More robust template?

Can anyone do this? I've also made {{ROCrecognition}}, it might be advisable to create {{recognition}} with selectors like "Kosovo" and "Taiwan"/"ROC"/"Republic of China" as well as "Western Sahara"/"WS"/"SADR"/"Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic" and other such states. So, for instance, to generate the same numbers as this template currently does, you could insert {{Recognition|Kosovo}}. Does this make sense to anyone else? I don't have the expertise to create this, but I figured I would put it out there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No need for that, w.r.t. the ROC, Western Sahara and whatever else the numbers are not expected to change quickly, if they change at all. Colchicum (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really The SADR numbers do change fairly frequently (moreso than the ROC), and they are contradictory on different pages (as Kosovo's used to be.) And if there was a robust template, there would be no problem with having a selector for the ROC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Implication of the existence and usage of this template

It is at least slightly biased towards statehood of Kosovo because the other view is not represented: how many UN member states are there which do not recognize Kosovo. All the best, --Biblbroks's talk 20:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want, you could create a new template with the number of countries that don't recognise Kosovo. I don't think it would be used though. Bazonka (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It merely provides updates to pages that report the number. If you believe that there are sufficient articles that state "n UN member states do not recognise Kosovo", or "n UN members states have a policy that opposes recognition of Kosovo" that the updating of such would be greatly eased by using a template, no-one would consider the existence of such a template biased. It is a tool, not a declaration of support. Kevin McE (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seen much point in all fairness. IJA (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the oppositet template in existence

I think this is a good template but is there an equivalent that provides the number of UN states that do not recognise? If not, do any of you techies feel like creating it? It would be a welcome addition. Thanks. 84.203.78.178 (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What would be the point? Read the thread immediately above. Bazonka (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

why excluding Taiwan recognition?

Isn't it more appropriate that the template counts also Taiwan and explains in its note: "Of the xx recognitizers xx-1 are UN members and the xx-th is Taiwan/RoC" or similar? Alinor (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The text clearly states that: "The purpose of this template is to simultaneously update all the articles that show the number of recognition by UN member states. ". You can try and change it to use it differently of course - to count "Taiwan/RoC" for example - but if you do so, someone might object why you don't use it to count "Vatican City/Holy See" which should be mentioned even beforehand, IMO. -Regards, Biblbroks (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Spacing

The spacing is messed up. It appears there are two spaces between "75" and both the proceeding and successive words. Int21h (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I broke that with my recent edit. Should be fixed now. TDL (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)