Template talk:Foreign relations of Serbia

Expand

I have expanded this template, and more fixes will come. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

What is problem with new template? It is just expanded, as i am creating articles that have notability, and are missing from this page. If you ask me, all countries should have templates like this, if those countries have relevant and notable diplomatic relations. Red links that are not notable will be removed, so, don't worry. If those stayed red for a week or two, no harm will be done. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't like your Expansion

Hello WhiteWriter, I had to revert your edits several times because I believe that what you did with your edits is wrong. It is wrong because Serbia is not a powerful country. You say you believe that all foreign relations templates should be like this. This is false. I have looked up at every foreign relations template. Just look at Template:Foreign relations of Russia, Template:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, and Template:Foreign relations of the United States, along with Template:Foreign relations of the European Union. These are all great powers. Serbia is not a great power. That is why your template had been reverted. Please I don't want to engage in a edit war with you. I hope that when you see these templates you will know what I mean. Please look at these templates above and you will find out.talk 6, November 2011 (UTC)

But, this template is not about "How great is this country", but as about foreign relations between countries. It is not important how "big power" is country in question. That is not reference. Do you have any wiki guideline what you could point? My template is based in WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and sure, WP:TMP. You opinion is not important per Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, so you should give me reasonable reference or allow me to further fix template. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Look WhiteWriter you can't make this template into this format because it is only applied to these templates only. I have looked at every foreign relations template and this is what I have found:

Only Template:Foreign relations of Russia, Template:Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China, and Template:Foreign relations of the United States. Only these three templates have the format that you have adopted. And please don't add the Military relations of Israel with Serbia. That only applies to the United States. Look the red onces only appear in these templates because these are countries and they are big and powerful superpowers. Serbia is not a big powerful superpower. talk 6, November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Red link means that article is not yet written. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. And itold you that i will create most of the bilateral articles that are missing! Once again, superpower is not question here, i doesn't matter, other countries don't have that much articles about bilateral relations, it is about wikipedia question, and not real life question. I removed Military relations of Israel with Serbia, and don't know where did you find that. And what do you think about situation that i restore new template, and continua to create new articles, and later remove red links that are unneeded? --WhiteWriter ^speaks 10:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Foreign relations of Serbia and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Unless there is some policy or guideline which suggests that WhiteWriter's version is the proper one for one reason or another — and I do not believe that there is such a policy or guideline — then since objection has been made to WhiteWriter's version then WhiteWriter's version should not become the template unless WhiteWriter can establish a consensus for the change. Since no policy or guideline applies, changes can be made to Wikipedia only if consensus supports them. The need for consensus is particularly true in this article since it is subject to discretionary sanctions pursuant to the Balkans ARBCOM decision. My personal opinion is that the version prior to WhiteWriter's changes is the slightly preferable one and the one best for the encyclopedia at this point in time, but my opinion is also irrelevant because the guidelines of the Third Opinion project say that Third Opinions cannot be "counted" in establishing or refuting consensus. If anyone would like to take this further, I'd suggest that a note at the Serbia project and/or a RFC would be a good next step.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

---

OK, following 3O, i will listen it, and i will just add articles that we have in current version of template. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 16:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

WhiteWriter. I like this. I hope that you add more articles to Europe especially on France and other European countres. Please add more but keep the current format please. I like this one very much. talk 7 November 2011 (UTC)