Talk:Somaliland

Formatting and language conventions For articles about Somaliland, please use the 24-hour clock to show times, e.g. 09:00-12:00 and 18:00-00:00. Please show prices in this format: Sl.Sh.100. Please use British spelling.

I rolled back a change deleting the "Understand" section; I think the deleter disagreed with the text, but we need that section per the Project:region article template. --(WT-en) Evan 07:40, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Regions

• Awdal
• Saaxil
• Sanaag
• Sool
• Togdheer
• Woqooyi Galbeed

I have moved the above administrative regions out of the article, as I do not believe they are needed at this time. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:34, 12 May 2010 (EDT)

They've been restored. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

US or Commonwealth English?

Could we standardise on one or the other?

My suggestion would be non-US because of the British colonial history and the number of folks of Somaliland extraction currently being "educated" in Glasgow and London. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 14:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Per "United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries: British English;" at wv:spelling, British English should be the preferred. Although Somaliland is not part of the Commonwealth, it probably would be if it was a recognised nation. That policy should probably be changed to say "...most Commonwealth countries and former British colonies". James A ▪ talk 14:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll begin to make the relevant changes here, James, but it might be better (to avoid the usual "Punch and Judy" drama with Globetrotter and Peterfitzgerald) if you changed the policy page. (Congratulations on finally getting rid of those misleading footnote style numbers previously mandated by policy!) --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 14:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Official" ?

Should we link? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 14:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. Doesn't look like the "Tourism" link works on their website yet; must be still under construction. Impressive website for a tiny little unrecognised state. Some states in Africa can't even get a webpage that looks like it's from the '90s online. James A ▪ talk 14:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If the "Tourism" link had worked, I would just have added the link and I'm happy that you have added it now, James. The Northern coast really is fantastic according to Alice's reports. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 14:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cross-hatching on the map

Unfortunately, User:Peterfitzgerald, who created the map, is no longer here. Does anyone know why there is cross-hatching on the map? Are those areas of conflict or claimed by Puntland or something? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Partial answer in the "Stay Safe" section of the Sool guide:

'Most of the Sool region is highly disputed between three separate administrations: the Somaliland government, the autonomous Puntland government and a new Khatumo State organised by local leaders to provide stability. The areas of ownership vary widely and does result in occasional confrontations.' Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Categorize as a country?

Somaliland is functionally an independent country, with a border control system on its own.

Wikivoyage should reflect this condition, by categorization of Somaliland as a country, instead of a region. Compare Palestinian territories, Transnistria and Taiwan; for which international recognition does not seem to matter. /Yvwv (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Phrasing

Granger, can you please stop pointlessly edit warring? For the matter, you edit warring because you don't agree with how things should be written is against Wikivoyage:Plunge forward and is not the way of how a wiki works. I quote your edit summary:

the old phrasing is fine, the other version adds words without adding substance

In my opinion, that's not a valid reason to revert a perfectly fine edit that had no issues until you came along because you weren't happy with how it sounded. It may have sounded like it has a little more words, but the former version (which is current because of your pointless edit warring) only sounds more dreary, and less enjoyable and without a tight prose.

Would like more opinions on which version is better (pasted below).

Current

It is not possible to enter from Somalia, so don't even try.

My version

It is not possible to enter from Somalia, so don't even think of trying unless you want to get yourself up into serious trouble.

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your version is literally incorrect as written – a traveller will not get in trouble for thinking about entering Somaliland. The existing text is perfectly clear, and I think the proposed version sounds a little silly, like the reader is being unnecessarily beaten over the head with the advice. I'm not sure what makes you say your version has "a tight prose" – to me "tight prose" means concise and clear without unnecessary verbiage. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I will side with Granger in this dispute as there is no punishment for thing about it but feel “don’t even attempt to” sounds the best. Tai123.123 (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Why can’t we write merely “It is not possible to enter from Somalia”? Any other information seems unnecessary if it is impossible. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

The current version is better than SHB2000's version. SelfieCity's version is better still, for exactly the reason they give.

It's good that SHB2000 brought this to the Talk page, but the claim that Granger was edit warring is not appropriate. Nurg (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I am also with SelfieCity's version and I like that version more than both my or the current.

But to Granger's atrocious behaviour. Typically, and this has been standard practice on nearly every single wiki, not just Wikivoyage. If someone makes an edit, and someone else is not happy with that version, the other user who is not happy with that version is meant to start the discussion on the talk page, not the user who made the original edit and such a recent example is at Metric and Imperial equivalents.

However, in this case, when I made the edit, Granger should have been the one who should have started the discussion, not me since they were the user who wasn't happy in this case, but instead they edit warred with me and insisted I were the one who needed to start the discussion. If this entire thing sounds harsh as, I'm sorry, but sucks that Granger couldn't follow standard practice, but instead insist other users do that when they don't agree with something and also defy standard practice.

To the claim that Granger was edit warring, I stand up for what I said. The definition from w:en:Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute.

This was obviously what was going on. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into a debate about who should have done what, but Wikivoyage:Plunge forward says "While everyone is encouraged to plunge forward, if someone else undoes your change you can view the article's history and there will usually be an explanation in the edit summary to indicate why the change was undone. If you still don't understand, ask for clarification on the article's talk page." After you plunged forward with your edit and I reverted it the first time, best practice would have been for you to take the disagreement to the talk page then instead of reinstating your edit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 08:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You missed the main point. Reread my comment again. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@SHB2000: I understand you being irritated at what happened - all of us who edit wikis experience that.

The process you describe where someone makes an edit, and someone else who disagrees with it starts a discussion, is an excellent process. However, it is not the sole and standard practice. A common process on Wikipedia is the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. The BOLD-then-discuss cycle you outline is good, but not the only accepted way. The edits in question involved 3 reverts in total, but each with an edit summary, so discussion was occurring via edit summaries. The number of reverts did not reach or breach Wikipedia's bright-line edit-war rule of no more than three reverts by one editor. You quoted WP but perhaps you overlooked the next sentence:

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. It is different than a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle.

Irritating though it may have been to you, Granger's actions did not amount to edit warring. It was just part and parcel of the normal rubbing along that we all have to do in a co-operative free-for-all where different opinions arise and need to be negotiated.

In August you said that I initiated an edit war with you. I asked that we just talk it through, without allegations of edit wars, as we want to keep Wikivoyage fun. You graciously apologised, explaining why you over-reacted, which I was very happy to accept. Perhaps you are over-reacting here for a similar reason. You are a very prolific editor and I worry that you are overdoing it and getting under stress. People can end up burning out even when doing things they love. To repeat the advice I gave in August, "Look after yourself and take a break if things get too heavy". Nurg (talk) 03:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Erigavo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Not visible on any Wikivoyage page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)