| Revision as of 18:51, 27 November 2012 editUnderlying lk (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Template editors53,685 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:16, 27 November 2012 edit undoAdamlouismarre (talk | contribs)160 edits Undid revision 525184305 by Underlying lk (talk)Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| I honestly don't believe that the ] would make an "imaginary and probably erroneous rank". If they have, then it isn't a good source document to use for your template and you should go with a year that isn't "erroneous". Until then, I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document. | I honestly don't believe that the ] would make an "imaginary and probably erroneous rank". If they have, then it isn't a good source document to use for your template and you should go with a year that isn't "erroneous". Until then, I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document. | ||
| ] (]) 11:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | ] (]) 11:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::It's called 'typo', they happen even in the UN. There are clearly 146 countries in this index, as specified in the document itself, as can be seen in the statistical table.--] (]) 18:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:16, 27 November 2012
11/27/2012
If you look at the source document on page 7 and 11:
"Our Gender Inequality Index (GII), updated this year for *****145**** countries, shows how reproductive health constraints contribute to gender inequality."
The tables are different than the actual GII index. The statistical data set is out of 145. The reason for 146 is because of the inclusion of a country that is sovereign, but doesn't actually have programs/laws/legislative bodies that could enact change in gender inequality. This means that the total set that is utilized for ranking and statistical measures is out of 145, not 146.
Please discuss below.
Adam Marré (talk) 10:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)Adam
- This template is based on and links rather explicitly to the table rather than the explanation. It makes no sense to keep on insisting that there are 145 countries in the list, as that leads to the nonsensical captions such as "145th out of 146" in the article Women in Yemen. It's much preferable to just accept that there is one more country in the table rather than in the explanation, instead of re-ranking every county to match the imaginary and probably erroneous rank offered in the explanation.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't believe that the United Nations would make an "imaginary and probably erroneous rank". If they have, then it isn't a good source document to use for your template and you should go with a year that isn't "erroneous". Until then, I will continue to revert the changes made to match the sourced document. Adam Marré (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)