This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Although there is a
stand-alone page for it, the practice is prevalent to mirror some content of subtopics in the relevant pages. Therefore, I don't think my succinct table is redundant. In fact, I think omitting said information from this page is less than ideal, because it is essential information to the subject of the page. There may be text indicating that a dependent territory is on the UN list but it would be more practical and better format to have a separate table of said list as well. Thinker78(talk)21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm puzzled by the section added above, aimed as it is toward a bunch of seasoned editors, it seems to me to violate
WP:DTTR and aimed to browbeat your fellow editors. I'm sure that I may have misconstrued your motives but felt it important to bring to your attention, ie even if that were not your intention it rather frames your approach to comments. To add to the discussion, I am mildly in favour of the addition of that table but I also recognise the strong arguments against it; namely that is to some extent redundant and incomplete. As such I'm not inclined to press for inclusion, rather suggesting that a more rounded and complete approach is required. As currently formulated I'm not in favour of inclusion but I would be prepared to consider a constructive proposal that addresses the concerns presented. WCMemail17:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Argumentum ad verecundiam. I have been in Wikipedia long enough to know that senior editors are not perfect (btw, I did not use a template). But tbh before posting the policies I was going to report the page to the edit warring noticeboard to be analyzed by editors more experienced about the issue. I decided against and instead just post the aforementioned thread that generated irk. Regards, Thinker78(talk)04:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Chipmunkdavis maybe we should, as the US is a world power. I would understand if we don't have 10 lists of 10 different countries or organizations in this page. But it may be a good idea to include a select few of the most notable ones and make mention of others. After all, how was the current list compiled? Does it pick and choose items to include, does it have consistency? Thinker78(talk)20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It was compiled by consensus, and does have consistency. There are always questions around the system (as there are with all similar topics), however these are more noticeable here as a reflection of the topic itself, which has always somewhat of a term of convenience.
CMD (
talk)
01:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Uninhabited islands are not dependent territories. To be a dependent territory, the entity needs to function like a country, i.e. it should have three key elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, and a functioning local government. Uninhabited islands only have a defined territory and nothing else, they are not dependent territories. It doesn't matter what their administering states call them, they are merely "
overseas territories" directly administered by their central governments.
All
Antarctic claims are also uninhabited and therefore they are not dependent territories too.
I propose the removal of the following 24 territories and territorial claims from the list of dependent territories:
It has been defined by the
United Nations. All dependent territories should function like countries. A dependent territory should have a permanent population. Its local people should have the option to break away from their parent state and create their own independent sovereign state via
self-determination.
Uninhabited islands cannot become independent sovereign states. Hence, they are not dependent territories.
Basically, the whole source talks about that. The United Nations use the term "non-self-governing territories" instead of dependent territories, dependent areas, or dependencies to describe these country-like political entities, but they are the same thing.
Obviously, uninhabited islands are not dependencies since they don't function like countries, they are just remote external territories located far away from the mainland. They don't "depend" on their mainland administration, they are "administered" by their mainland administration.
120.16.127.229 (
talk)
23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please quote the part that says "all dependent territories should function like countries" or anything even like that and the part about uninhabited islands. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
user:120.16.127.229, What you are saying is just your interpretation of what the UN writes or thinks. Even if it is obvious, it is still your opinion (primary source) and is therefore not a secondary source, and therefore should not be used a such. I also have doubts about your interpretation anyway.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk)
00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please roll back the latest edits in the article to approximately the state of January 7, 2024. User Koavf changed the header of the tables of the dependent territories of New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. Firstly, the matter has not been completed, and secondly, it has only gotten worse, since it is now unclear which territories are uninhabited and which are claimed.
Also, Palmyra Atoll was added to the table of dependent territories of the United States, although the table states before the table that this territory is excluded from the list because “it is classified as an incorporated territory under US law”. The result is a contradiction between the text, table and image at the very beginning of the article.
I apologize in advance for possible mistakes—I live in Russia and do not fully speak English.
Откатите, пожалуйста, последние правки в статье примерно до состояния на 7 января 2024 года. Пользователь Koavf изменил шапку таблиц зависимых территорий Новой Зеландии, Норвегии и Соединённого Королевства. Во-первых, дело не доведено до конца, а во-вторых, стало только хуже, поскольку теперь непонятно, какие территории необитаемы, а какие — заявлены.
Также в таблицу зависимых территорий Соединённых Штатов был добавлен атолл Пальмира, хотя перед таблицей сказано, что данная территория исключена из списка, так как «в законодательстве США она классифицируется как инкорпорированная территория». В итоге получается противоречие между текстом, таблицей и изображением в самом начале статьи.
Your tables are ugly, man. The main purpose of this article is creating a list of dependent territories, so these territories should be the first (main) item in the table, not their political status. The original tables are easier for the readers to acquire information, not the weird ones created by you.
2001:8003:9100:2C01:B150:204C:65CD:3FA0 (
talk)
01:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Koavf, your edits seem to have created new "Status" titles for NZ and Norway. Where were they from and why were the old ones changed? As for Palmyra that was not in Koavf's edits, and either way I have reverted.
CMD (
talk)
04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you explain how MOS:TABLECAPTION requires the changing of "Dependent territory" to "Territory" in some cases and "Dependency" in other cases?
CMD (
talk)
04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so is there another reason for why you changed the status titles if not MOS:TABLECAPTION as you indicated in your previous answer?
CMD (
talk)
05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What are "status titles"? I still have no clue what you're talking about. There were no captions, there need to be captions, therefore, I added captions. I don't see what the problem is. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I provided specific examples two messages above. Given there was apparently no reason, I have restored the long-standing version. I do agree with OP that it is unusual for the tables to be inconsistent, so would suggest a future change be made to all tables instead of just 3.
CMD (
talk)
14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per
MOS:DTAB and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that
MOS:COLHEAD says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What I did was ask very openly why the content was changed. I got one answer, then a note that this was not actually the answer, then a dismissal. Those who are blind benefit as do all our readers from accurate and explainable content choices.
CMD (
talk)
02:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I in no way dismissed you: I asked you what you meant. You on the other hand dismissed me just now. The solution to what you perceive to be deficient table captions is not remove them, but improve them. Have you read
MOS:DTAB? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯05:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have openly asked you from the beginning to explain the edits, which were clearly not just adding captions. I have provided specific quotes. I'm in some cases getting 3 word replies to my questions. And yes I have read the MOS.
CMD (
talk)
09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have answered all your questions, but I don't know what a "status title" is, hence I asked. I explained that I did two things: I added table captions and removed column headers and gave you citations as to why:
MOS:TABLECAPTION and
MOS:COLHEAD. Since you have evidently read the entire MOS, I am still waiting on an answer to my
yes–no question above. You know that captions are obligatory and you removed them. You know that column headers are disallowed and you added them (back). Why? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯09:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Prior to your question I had already
quoted the changes, which were not one of those two things you list now. I ma not sure why this is still being missed, despite my repeated mention of them. I already answered your second question too,
here, also apparently missed.
CMD (
talk)
09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Why?" is not a yes or no question. At any rate, I have as mentioned answered the questions, with an actual answer rather than the made up quote there. There is a very simple path forward, which is explaining the content changes I noted, explaining the content changes Alexander Berezin noted, and explaining the inconsistency within the page Alexander Berezin noted. I can't see how you can claim to be serious when none of these have been done over the past few days.
CMD (
talk)
10:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per MOS:DTAB and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that MOS:COLHEAD says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway?" does not include the word "why". I did not ask you "why", I asked you: "to be clear, you did x, yes or no" and you keep on not answering and then come up with demonstrably untrue nonsense about how I asked "Why..." which never happened. I'll add table captions and remove column headers to all the tables since you seem unwilling or unable to help blind users as the MOS explicitly says is necessary and per your directive to do so above. You could have also done this, but were motivated to write this noise instead. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You literally asked me "Why?"
here. It is two of your messages above. Clearly the previous answers are still being missed, so I do not see this as productive. I have already noted a possible way forward above.
CMD (
talk)
10:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes and prior to that, I asked another question that you did not answer, which is clearly the one that I am waiting on you to answer and which you won't because you're playing games. Go ahead and answer it. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your question prior to that was "Have you read MOS:DTAB?" to which I literally replied "yes". Further direct personal attacks assuming bad faith will be reported.
CMD (
talk)
10:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
lol, I didn't make any personal attacks. Anyway, you've made it clear what your intentions are. You have a nice life and be good and be well. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not an authority. Legally, under both domestic and international law, the territories have been incorporated into Spain and Portugal respectively.
TFD (
talk)
04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I can see the difference clearly. The Canary Islands are an autonomous region of Spain, and the Asores and Madeiras are autonomous regions of Portugal, while Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk are external dependent territories of Australia.
AuH2ORepublican (
talk)
03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
Although there is a
stand-alone page for it, the practice is prevalent to mirror some content of subtopics in the relevant pages. Therefore, I don't think my succinct table is redundant. In fact, I think omitting said information from this page is less than ideal, because it is essential information to the subject of the page. There may be text indicating that a dependent territory is on the UN list but it would be more practical and better format to have a separate table of said list as well. Thinker78(talk)21:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm puzzled by the section added above, aimed as it is toward a bunch of seasoned editors, it seems to me to violate
WP:DTTR and aimed to browbeat your fellow editors. I'm sure that I may have misconstrued your motives but felt it important to bring to your attention, ie even if that were not your intention it rather frames your approach to comments. To add to the discussion, I am mildly in favour of the addition of that table but I also recognise the strong arguments against it; namely that is to some extent redundant and incomplete. As such I'm not inclined to press for inclusion, rather suggesting that a more rounded and complete approach is required. As currently formulated I'm not in favour of inclusion but I would be prepared to consider a constructive proposal that addresses the concerns presented. WCMemail17:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Argumentum ad verecundiam. I have been in Wikipedia long enough to know that senior editors are not perfect (btw, I did not use a template). But tbh before posting the policies I was going to report the page to the edit warring noticeboard to be analyzed by editors more experienced about the issue. I decided against and instead just post the aforementioned thread that generated irk. Regards, Thinker78(talk)04:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Chipmunkdavis maybe we should, as the US is a world power. I would understand if we don't have 10 lists of 10 different countries or organizations in this page. But it may be a good idea to include a select few of the most notable ones and make mention of others. After all, how was the current list compiled? Does it pick and choose items to include, does it have consistency? Thinker78(talk)20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)reply
It was compiled by consensus, and does have consistency. There are always questions around the system (as there are with all similar topics), however these are more noticeable here as a reflection of the topic itself, which has always somewhat of a term of convenience.
CMD (
talk)
01:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Uninhabited islands are not dependent territories. To be a dependent territory, the entity needs to function like a country, i.e. it should have three key elements: a defined territory, a permanent population, and a functioning local government. Uninhabited islands only have a defined territory and nothing else, they are not dependent territories. It doesn't matter what their administering states call them, they are merely "
overseas territories" directly administered by their central governments.
All
Antarctic claims are also uninhabited and therefore they are not dependent territories too.
I propose the removal of the following 24 territories and territorial claims from the list of dependent territories:
It has been defined by the
United Nations. All dependent territories should function like countries. A dependent territory should have a permanent population. Its local people should have the option to break away from their parent state and create their own independent sovereign state via
self-determination.
Uninhabited islands cannot become independent sovereign states. Hence, they are not dependent territories.
Basically, the whole source talks about that. The United Nations use the term "non-self-governing territories" instead of dependent territories, dependent areas, or dependencies to describe these country-like political entities, but they are the same thing.
Obviously, uninhabited islands are not dependencies since they don't function like countries, they are just remote external territories located far away from the mainland. They don't "depend" on their mainland administration, they are "administered" by their mainland administration.
120.16.127.229 (
talk)
23:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please quote the part that says "all dependent territories should function like countries" or anything even like that and the part about uninhabited islands. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)reply
@
user:120.16.127.229, What you are saying is just your interpretation of what the UN writes or thinks. Even if it is obvious, it is still your opinion (primary source) and is therefore not a secondary source, and therefore should not be used a such. I also have doubts about your interpretation anyway.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk)
00:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Please roll back the latest edits in the article to approximately the state of January 7, 2024. User Koavf changed the header of the tables of the dependent territories of New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. Firstly, the matter has not been completed, and secondly, it has only gotten worse, since it is now unclear which territories are uninhabited and which are claimed.
Also, Palmyra Atoll was added to the table of dependent territories of the United States, although the table states before the table that this territory is excluded from the list because “it is classified as an incorporated territory under US law”. The result is a contradiction between the text, table and image at the very beginning of the article.
I apologize in advance for possible mistakes—I live in Russia and do not fully speak English.
Откатите, пожалуйста, последние правки в статье примерно до состояния на 7 января 2024 года. Пользователь Koavf изменил шапку таблиц зависимых территорий Новой Зеландии, Норвегии и Соединённого Королевства. Во-первых, дело не доведено до конца, а во-вторых, стало только хуже, поскольку теперь непонятно, какие территории необитаемы, а какие — заявлены.
Также в таблицу зависимых территорий Соединённых Штатов был добавлен атолл Пальмира, хотя перед таблицей сказано, что данная территория исключена из списка, так как «в законодательстве США она классифицируется как инкорпорированная территория». В итоге получается противоречие между текстом, таблицей и изображением в самом начале статьи.
Your tables are ugly, man. The main purpose of this article is creating a list of dependent territories, so these territories should be the first (main) item in the table, not their political status. The original tables are easier for the readers to acquire information, not the weird ones created by you.
2001:8003:9100:2C01:B150:204C:65CD:3FA0 (
talk)
01:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Koavf, your edits seem to have created new "Status" titles for NZ and Norway. Where were they from and why were the old ones changed? As for Palmyra that was not in Koavf's edits, and either way I have reverted.
CMD (
talk)
04:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Could you explain how MOS:TABLECAPTION requires the changing of "Dependent territory" to "Territory" in some cases and "Dependency" in other cases?
CMD (
talk)
04:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Okay, so is there another reason for why you changed the status titles if not MOS:TABLECAPTION as you indicated in your previous answer?
CMD (
talk)
05:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What are "status titles"? I still have no clue what you're talking about. There were no captions, there need to be captions, therefore, I added captions. I don't see what the problem is. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯07:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I provided specific examples two messages above. Given there was apparently no reason, I have restored the long-standing version. I do agree with OP that it is unusual for the tables to be inconsistent, so would suggest a future change be made to all tables instead of just 3.
CMD (
talk)
14:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per
MOS:DTAB and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that
MOS:COLHEAD says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)reply
What I did was ask very openly why the content was changed. I got one answer, then a note that this was not actually the answer, then a dismissal. Those who are blind benefit as do all our readers from accurate and explainable content choices.
CMD (
talk)
02:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I in no way dismissed you: I asked you what you meant. You on the other hand dismissed me just now. The solution to what you perceive to be deficient table captions is not remove them, but improve them. Have you read
MOS:DTAB? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯05:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have openly asked you from the beginning to explain the edits, which were clearly not just adding captions. I have provided specific quotes. I'm in some cases getting 3 word replies to my questions. And yes I have read the MOS.
CMD (
talk)
09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I have answered all your questions, but I don't know what a "status title" is, hence I asked. I explained that I did two things: I added table captions and removed column headers and gave you citations as to why:
MOS:TABLECAPTION and
MOS:COLHEAD. Since you have evidently read the entire MOS, I am still waiting on an answer to my
yes–no question above. You know that captions are obligatory and you removed them. You know that column headers are disallowed and you added them (back). Why? ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯09:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Prior to your question I had already
quoted the changes, which were not one of those two things you list now. I ma not sure why this is still being missed, despite my repeated mention of them. I already answered your second question too,
here, also apparently missed.
CMD (
talk)
09:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"Why?" is not a yes or no question. At any rate, I have as mentioned answered the questions, with an actual answer rather than the made up quote there. There is a very simple path forward, which is explaining the content changes I noted, explaining the content changes Alexander Berezin noted, and explaining the inconsistency within the page Alexander Berezin noted. I can't see how you can claim to be serious when none of these have been done over the past few days.
CMD (
talk)
10:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"So to be clear, you know that table captions are required per MOS:DTAB and they are used by the blind, but you removed them and you also know that MOS:COLHEAD says to not insert columns that span the table in the middle like this because they are difficult for blind users to navigate and you inserted them anyway?" does not include the word "why". I did not ask you "why", I asked you: "to be clear, you did x, yes or no" and you keep on not answering and then come up with demonstrably untrue nonsense about how I asked "Why..." which never happened. I'll add table captions and remove column headers to all the tables since you seem unwilling or unable to help blind users as the MOS explicitly says is necessary and per your directive to do so above. You could have also done this, but were motivated to write this noise instead. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
You literally asked me "Why?"
here. It is two of your messages above. Clearly the previous answers are still being missed, so I do not see this as productive. I have already noted a possible way forward above.
CMD (
talk)
10:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes and prior to that, I asked another question that you did not answer, which is clearly the one that I am waiting on you to answer and which you won't because you're playing games. Go ahead and answer it. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Your question prior to that was "Have you read MOS:DTAB?" to which I literally replied "yes". Further direct personal attacks assuming bad faith will be reported.
CMD (
talk)
10:25, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
lol, I didn't make any personal attacks. Anyway, you've made it clear what your intentions are. You have a nice life and be good and be well. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯10:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)reply
It's not an authority. Legally, under both domestic and international law, the territories have been incorporated into Spain and Portugal respectively.
TFD (
talk)
04:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Well, I can see the difference clearly. The Canary Islands are an autonomous region of Spain, and the Asores and Madeiras are autonomous regions of Portugal, while Christmas, Cocos and Norfolk are external dependent territories of Australia.
AuH2ORepublican (
talk)
03:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)reply