Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:02, 3 November 2014

Template items

If this template is going to work out, it is necessary to discuss which items to include. The top of the template says "Part of a series on the History of Northern Cyprus". Ideally it should only contain links where the template would naturally be included in the target article. If the template fits in the article, then the article fits in the template.

It is obvious that articles like "Ottoman Cyprus" cannot be "part of the series". (If there in the future should be an article on "Ottoman Northern Cyprus" (which is rather doubtful), it would fit, but not the general article.) Links to "Northern Cyprus" and even to "Cyprus" are also obviously not "part of the series". In the first case, the link should go to "Northern Cyprus#History" (or "History of Northern Cyprus" if that article ever reaches main space), in the second case, it is a non-starter.

I have stripped the non-starters from the template, reorganized the rest (and added one). There is more to do, but this may be a start.

I would also suggest to find a more elegant illustration on top than the rather ugly "look, we have our own map and our own flag". Regards! --T*U (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree fully with your well-considered comments. This is just another POV-push from the usual account. Δρ.Κ.  18:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious that articles like "Ottoman Cyprus" cannot be "part of the series".

The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence, naturally, the "History of Northern Cyprus" includes not only that of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" but also that of "Turkish Cypriots". See, inter alia, "Template:History of Armenia", "Template:History of Abkhazia", etc.

If there in the future should be an article on "Ottoman Northern Cyprus" (which is rather doubtful), it would fit, but not the general article.)

There will be no "Ottoman Northern Cyprus". There is already a "Ottoman Cyprus"

Links to "Northern Cyprus" and even to "Cyprus" are also obviously not "part of the series". In the first case, the link should go to "Northern Cyprus#History" (or "History of Northern Cyprus" if that article ever reaches main space),

There will be link to "History of Northern Cyprus" article.

I would also suggest to find a more elegant illustration on top than the rather ugly "look, we have our own map and our own flag".

The fantastic art of Lefkara goes back to 1000 years ago, any many tourists got attracted from Lefkara arts.

The map is one of the frequently used items in this template: See, inter alia, Template:History of Abkhazia

Template:History of Canada: Only the flag of Canada.

Template:History of Greece: There is a relevant map.

You wrote: You changed "Events/hostilities of 1974" to "Turkish invasion of Cyprus". "Events/hostilities of 1974" already redirect there.

But, the scope of "Events/hostilities of 1974" is larger than the latter: The latter began on 20.07.1974 whereas the former began 15.07.1974, and even earlier (See, inter alia, Makarios' letters). Alexyflemming (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

About Ottoman Cyprus: If there had been anything in the Ottoman Cyprus article that was relevant for Northern Cyprus specificly, it might have been possible to link to that. But there isn't, since the concept of Northern Cyprus as a separate entity didn't exist at the time.

About the illustration: Local traditional artwork? Certainly. Flag? Certainly. Map? Certainly (but notice the clean simplicity in most templates that use a map). But all three at the same time is completely overkill. I would suggest the artwork alone, since the map has no history before 1974 and the flag not before 1983.

About "Turkish invasion": The template is constructed of links to WP articles and the relevant WP article is named "Turkish invasion". Writing "Events/hostilities of 1974" when linking to "Turkish invasion" is just pov-pushing an euphemism. --T*U (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Writing "Events/hostilities of 1974" when linking to "Turkish invasion".

Nope, I wrote "Events/hostilities of 1974" to refer/link "(15.07.1974(even earlier)-later)", not to refer/link "20.07.1974-later". The methodology I used is exactly the same methodology of United Nations. I showed you already.

• But all three at the same time is completely overkill.

The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence, once you got this (the isomorphism of "Northern Cyprus" and "Turkish Cypriotism"), then all the rest makes sense. Alexyflemming (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your comments: 1) We are talking about links to existing articles, so there is no way you can link anything to "(15.07.1974(even earlier)-later)". 2) What has the demonyn to do with the illustration in the template? --T*U (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". Hence ... Ah yes, the good ol' argumentum ad etymologum. Don't be offended if people don't take you seriously. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

The demonym of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Cypriot". See the infobox at right in Northern Cyprus (even, it is the only demonym of "Northern Cyprus"). Since the beginners lack some elementary knowledge like this, it is sometime difficult for the experts like me to explain the Cyprus dispute thoroughly to the novices. Alexyflemming (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

There's no established demonym. You'll see 'Northern Cypriot' used quite often, especially when distinguishing the citizens of Northern Cyprus from Turkish Cypriots is desirable. But this is besides the point; I was commenting on your illogic. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"Northern Cypriot?!", Huh? The two people living in the island are foremost separated according to the race, not according to geography. "Northern Cypriot" also not that much prevalent if compared with "Turkish Cypriot" (Google Search: "Northern Cypriot": 9,750 links; "Turkish Cypriot": 1,380,000 links.) and used by some foreigners that are not familiar with "Cyprus" and "Cyprus dispute". Northern Cyprus is not the country of "Northern Cypriots", but the country of "Turkish Cypriots"! Alexyflemming (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you are the expert. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

(the isomorphism of "Northern Cyprus" and "Turkish Cypriotism") This "isomorphism" has no historical basis prior to 1974 and is POV and abuse of WP:OR to relate the term "Northern Cyprus" with "Turkish Cypriotism" throughout history. "Turkish Cypriots" existed long before the entity known as "Northern Cyprus" or "TRNC". In addition "Turkish Cypriots" did not live in "Northern Cyprus" but throughout Cyprus for most of their history. "Northern Cyprus" came into existence after the 1974 invasion and is the result of forcible population evictions which changed the historical demographics of the northern part of Cyprus which for most of its historical existence had a Greek-Cypriot majority. There was not even a "Land of Northern Cyprus" where "Turkish Cypriots" could aspire one day to return to, like the Jews of Israel. So to create an article on "History of Northern Cyprus" and try to also accommodate in it the "History of Turkish Cypriots", while ignoring the fact that the location had a Greek majority for most of its history and that Turkish Cypriots were not located in it for most of their history, is ahistorical propaganda. Δρ.Κ.  00:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do we really need this sidebar? I think {{Northern Cyprus topics}} has already got it covered. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

"History of Northern Cyprus" is only one of the items of "Northern Cyprus topics". The "History of Northern Cyprus" has its own items, all related with history somewhat. Hence, "Template: History of Northern Cyprus" is really needed.Alexyflemming (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added two links that were missing, and now, with the exception of UNFICYP, there's complete overlap. There simply isn't enough material for a History nav template. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about the guidelines concerning multiple navigation templates containing overlapping information. I feel that the history template is quite handy and more easy to use, but would welcome more experienced editors to comment on the suitability of having both boxes. --T*U (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. Sidebars are usually placed at the top, so they're more visible, and, since this one's got less links than the navbox, it should also be somewhat easier to navigate. But there's also clutter to consider; this template will be placed in articles that have already got other sidebars. I've seen articles with sidebars longer than the text. 213.7.147.34 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)