Template talk:Countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Superfluous

This is yet another footer template that is going to be called superfluous. I'm tempted to go about removing links to it myself. --Joy [shallot] 11:36, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find nothing superfluous about this Template I started. If this template is really superfluous like you say, in that case the article History of the Mediterranean region is superfluous as well. Mediterranean history is very important, and that's why I created this template.--Gramaic 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Your conclusion is, well, false. There is no real reason why there need to be links through this kind of a template in order to somehow justify the existence of the aforementioned article. --Joy [shallot] 00:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You may think that my conclusion is false, and continue to think that there's no real reason of having such a template, that's you opinion and I respect that. On the other hand, Joy, the Mediterranean countries (and region) connects the major continents of the old world (Europe, Asia and Africa), by both land and sea. So having such a template, is very important because it unites the continents of the "old world."--Gramaic 02:50, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But Wikipedia is not here to unite continents of the old world. We're not on a mission here, we're writing an encyclopedia. The article about the Mediterranean can include a list of mediterranean countries, and there can be a category, but pushing it into a large box on every country article is excessive. --Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)
Yes I know Wikipedia isn't here to unite the continents of the old world, and I know we're not on mission to do anything. Just like you and Ronline have discussed that many of the countries listed don't have a Mediterranean climate, but this template is listing countries that are a part of the Mediterranean region, yes this template does have countries that don't border the Mediterranean sea yet have a Mediterranean climate such as Portugal, Bulgaria, and Romania, but again this templates goes by the countries that are located within the region of the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean region has such a rich history, that in order to travel from one continent or another in the old days, you have to go through the Mediterranean region and sea. I still don't understand why you oppose this template. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 03:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Gramaic, I appreciate the fact that the Mediterranean region has such a rich and important history for the world. The reason why I oppose it is because it is quite irrelevant. And the fact that Portugal, Bulgaria and Romania have a Mediterranean climate is questionable! Ronline 05:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Well Ronline, if you think there is something irrelevant with this template, then don't hesitate to edit it for the best. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 06:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree it has a rich history - go forth and write something about it and help those people get an overview. History of the Mediterranean region looks like a good start. Adding a template to the bottom of pages doesn't really help that cause. --Joy [shallot] 10:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polls

Should the following countries/territories be listed in this template? Please cast your votes;

[edit] Armenia

Support

  1. Gramaic

Oppose

  1. Mustafaa 22:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yuber(talk) 04:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:35, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments


[edit] West Bank

Support

  1. Gramaic
  2. Mustafaa 22:25, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) - but list together with Gaza Strip.

Oppose

  1. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • I'm willing to be persuaded, but I feel WB has more of a desert climate. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:37, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Romania

From Ronline: Firstly, I must say I find this box highly irrelevant. Of course we can group these countries together, but this is a very irrelevant grouping. If this gets accepted, then I could just make a grouping of "Countries that have flat tax systems" and put an infobox on every country page for that, or "Countries which are landlocked", etc, etc. What I mean to say is that a lot of these countries don't have much in common. My main issue is concerning Romania, as well as to an extent Bulgaria. None of these countries have been considered Mediterranean, historically. Romania has a small Black Sea coast, and while it's climate and flora/fauna in that part (called Dobruja) may be similar to Mediterranean, the majority of the country isn't like that. Transylvania and Moldavia, which together make up the majority of the country, are made up of mountains, forests and hills and have a cold, temperate climate with heavy snows. Wallachia, the southern part, is warmer but still not close to Mediterranean "status". Flora and fauna in Romania, except for Dobruja, is mostly Central European (though Romania is a Southeastern European country). Even Dobruja itself doesn't have a true "Mediterranean" climate. I'm also making a case for Bulgaria, which is also different to Mediterranean countries. I was just surprised to see these two, especially Romania on here, because I feel that it's wrong to place them in this category because geographically, climatically, etc they are out of place. So, to be democratic,

[edit] Support (the inclusion of Romania in this category)

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Comments

[edit] Other countries

I've just noticed Slovenia and France (!) is on here too. OK, I'm really having a hard time now seeing the relevance of this category. To not even go into politics and economics, but just staying in geography and climate, there are major differences between the climates of Slovenia, which is basically an Alpine country with a small Adriatic coastline, and Algeria, which is mostly arid. Not to mention France, which in the northern part is so different to Mediterannean climate. I understand France has a Mediterranean coastline, but that's not enough. I really don't see the point. I suppose if they had something in common in culture then you could argue something. I think we all agree that culturally, politically, economically, they're all very different. Then I suppose you could argue that "Well, they have a geographic similarity". But even that I think is very loose. I mean, yes, they can be grouped together in some sort, but it's such a weak grouping that it doesn't deserve its own template. As I said before, I could now make all these loose groupings (such as "Countries through which the Danube flows") and make templates for them all. Each country probably fits into 100 groupings based on various indicators. Are we going to have factboxes for them all? Surely not. All we need are relevant factboxes that define each country - things like "Countries in Europe", "Countries in the EU", etc. Things that relate to significant aspects of countries, not minor ones. In short, not things like these. Ronline 9 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)

Yes, there is little point to be seen. I told this to Gramaic already, but nobody backed me up. I'm happy to see finally it's not just me who thinks it's needless.
TFD? --Joy [shallot] 9 July 2005 15:33 (UTC)

[edit] Territories

I've added the overseas territories of the UK and Spain to the article, and tidied up the presentation. Astrotrain 18:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

well you did it bad. -- tasc talkdeeds 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

What is wrong with you? your version is ugly, it's not possibe to read it and it's in table! why on earth to start edit war? -- tasc talkdeeds 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try to start a more constructive discussion, rather than a badly worded insult. Astrotrain 21:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you try to start a 'constructive discussion'? What was exactly an insult? Saying that your version is ugly? -- tasc talkdeeds 07:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain

I have added Spain to the template