Template talk:Infobox disputed islands

Law outsiders may think administering means having the territorial sovereignty

@Nihonjoe: I think the reason of this revert of yours is inappropriate. As I mentioned, some people naively think administrating means having the territorial sovereignty so I added the note to clarify the misconception. Why on earth is the note "irrelevant and pointless"? Did you read the note and my edit summary carefully? I would like to see a reasonable explanation from you. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is pointless clutter. The purpose of an an infobox is to briefly present key facts. There are many ways some reader might misunderstand something, but the infobox is not the place to explain them. Explanatory detail belongs in article text.

In this case, the words "Disputed islands" at the top of the infobox inform the reader that there is a dispute about aspects of ownership, and they link to the Territorial dispute article for detail. Given that, the reader can expect the headings "Administered by" and "Claimed by" to mean just that and not necessarily any more. Kanguole 09:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That sounds so simple. Unfortunately, not all people are able to interpret it correctly. A person I discussed with at the Chinese Wikipedia simply thinks that the administrator is the owner. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

As someone who considers the UK's claim to 'administer' Rockall simply laughable, reluctantly I have to agree with Kanguole: the infobox is to summarise, not to provide a platform on which to construct a fork of the content.:

(While trying to WP:AGF on the part of Matt Smith's Chinese correspondent, it is difficult not see disingenuity on their analysis. The Government of China claims sovereignty over islets and reefs that are in the outer territorial waters of Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and the Phillipines, according to its nine dash line principle. By artificially changing them into islands (which is irrelevant in international law), it now administers them (military administration). That still does not make them Chinese territory, might is not right. --Red King (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Although there can be multiple definitions for "Chinese", I don't identify myself as one. Instead, I identify myself as a Taiwanese. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Kanguole already replied with my rationale. I don't have anything additional to provide than what they said. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

What about disputed lands (not islands)? Does it need to have a template?

I think disputed lands should also have a template. Uranuscat33 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)