Talk:African nations gather to support a ban on cluster bombs

Which is the second country

Which is the second country to produce them? Can we get a quote from them? Sherurcij 20:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know but I have found some secondary sources to use, so that info might be in there. Cirt - (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

India

Is India participating? Can we have a list of countries please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.65.188.1 (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This article has since been archived, but there is more info in the sources subsection. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote box

After the article is expanded more the quote box will look better, and there is still lots more info to cull from the cited sources. Cirt - (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

bumped it to the left Sherurcij 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good over there. If we expand the article a good deal more, we could even use another one. Cirt - (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Notations

An interesting new idea - but I don't think we really need this. A Sources section satisfies this, and other news/media sources generally don't cite everything after sentences with footnotes, that is more of an encyclopedic thing. Cirt - (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't for sources, this is for "additional information", other news sites often use HTML tooltips, or sideBoxes for this kind of information, because it otherwise slows down the actual tempo of the prose writing. The notation way is better than sideboxes, in my opinion, but simply "listing them" is the worst of the three possibilities. Sherurcij 21:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I just think it looks rather silly in a "Notations" section - I think this is something that is very rarely, if ever, done in news/media sources. For example - the AFP has listed out some countries - and in other instances just utilizes mention of the statistics. I think the Notations section should be removed, it detracts from the rest of the article, which is starting to look really nice. Cirt - (talk) 21:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently there is a template for this sort of thing - {{reflist}}. See also Wikinews:Style_guide#Citing_your_references. Cirt - (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's for references, like listing which stories you used - you can't use ((Source)) to list country names :) As I said, you're welcome to create a separate InfoBox for each list, but I think the current method is the best for not interrupting the prose of the news piece. You could perhaps rename "Notations" to another title? Sherurcij 21:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why have this section at all? If the reader is interested, they can go check out the sources for more detail and info. I just think that if the info is not worthy of putting into the article itself in paragraph format, then a separate subsection for it looks silly and is not something commonly done by other news/media sources. I think that section should be removed, and the info merged into the article itself. Cirt - (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Because a news article is not a series of lists, this is why you see infoboxes in newspapers and especially in online media. Either make a sidebar infobox with the information, or leave it in the notes at the bottom. Sherurcij 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that it is neeeded either way. We already have an image and a quote box in the article itself, more boxes would break up the article further. I think the section should be removed, it detracts from the article. Cirt - (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that unless the article becomes much longer, boxes would detract from its aestetic, that's why the notations are the only way to include the information without either ruining our article text, or ruining the layout. Sherurcij 21:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that if the info is not worth putting in the article's text itself, it isn't really necessary to have it in a "Notations" section. This style hasn't been used in other articles on this subject. Cirt - (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The info is worth including, but its format as three gigantic lists in a row will ruin the aesthetic of the article, detracting from the quality of the article. Sherurcij 21:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the other media/news sources/reports on this subject have either shorter lists, with some of the countries selected, not a list of all, and not a Notations subsection at the bottom of their articles. We should remove this section, highlight a few of the countries (as done in the other articles, like for example the AFP article) and then just add the number of other countries, instead of a list. Cirt - (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Cluster bombs have been used in over 30 countries and territories worldwide including Ethiopia, Sudan, Angola, Chad, Sierra Leone, DR Congo, Uganda and Eritrea, as well as Western Sahara. Egypt and South Africa have produced cluster bombs and at least 14 African countries stockpile the weapons.

This source actually does list out many of the countries in paragraph/text format, using the idea I had proposed in my previous comment - list out some of the countries, and include the total stats for the rest. The above blockquoted portion of text from that article is a good example of how to go about doing this for this article. Cirt - (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of footnotes is highly unusual here. I would just move them into sources. See WN:SG#Citing your references for more info. --SVTCobra 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SVTCobra (talk · contribs). And the info is already present in the Sources section, so if the reader wants more specific info, they can just check the cited sources. Cirt - (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree...really it looks bad, its not a news style (not ours either) and we don't need to repeat the same things over and over. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 04:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay I removed that section in response to outside review/comments by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs). Cirt - (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Mtonga quote from AFP

Mtonga told the Agence France-Presse that South Africa is the largest producer and stockpiler of cluster bombs, and urged them to destroy their stockpile.

I may be mistaken, but how is this info a dup to anything else present in the article at this time? Cirt - (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

quote

http://www.integratedframework.org/files/Livingstone%20Declaration_final.doc suggests the Livingstone Declaration was written in 2005, media about this declaration is confusing. Sherurcij 22:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert on this African convention or cluster bombs, but as a editor I do not see the article mentioning a "Livingstone Declaration", rather it seems to mention only a "Wellington Declaration". Is this perhaps the source of the confusion? the names? --SVTCobra 23:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sherurcij (talk · contribs) removed the "Livingstone Declaration" mention, so that looks okay now. Cirt - (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Typo

{{editprotected}}

'a a' -> 'a' Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cirt (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)