This template is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
There's no need. And the Nobel Prize template is not the best answer anyway. What's the point of going up to 2025? The Nobel prize template is only split that way because it's been running for over 100 years. The Sakharov Prize has only been going since 1988, so the split you made is unnecessary in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point in using 2025. Why do you think the Nobel Prize template should serve as a guide? Choosing an arbitrary date from the future strikes me as, well, arbitrary. I also don't see the point in splitting apart 1988-2000. In fact, I was planning, when I have a few more free moments, in suggesting that they be combined. Also, as it stands, this template only goes to 2011, not 2025. We don't know the winners yet for 2012, 2013, etc., so the template as it stands cannot actually cover through 2025. -- Irn (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merging them back into one template is also a good idea. I will do this. we can always split it again in the future if it becomes too large. Frietjes (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Judgement day came before 2025, this template would be no use, but if it came after 2025, we have to restore the original name!--Maher27777 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's deal with that in due course. It's fine as it is, and even better now it's been merged back. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
