This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Discussions at Talk:Australia and Talk:God Save the Queen have led me here for some guidance. The debate at Australia focuses on the inclusion of God Save the Queen in the facts table as the Royal Anthem of Australia, following the format on most Commonwealth Realm articles. The debate at Talk:Australia seemed to conclude that only the national anthem should be included in the facts table, and the Royal Anthem should be footnoted. However, after reading through the guidelines here on facts tables, I see no provision even for a national anthem to be included. Is there a policy regarding national anthems and royal anthems? If not, I feel strongly that one should be created as it would have scope over many articles on Wikipedia. -- G2bambino 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, where is this? I'm looking at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Facts table, and I don't see any mention of anthems at all. --
G2bambino
18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What about those countries such as the UK that don't have an official national anthem, but do have a royal anthem? TharkunColl 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It’s got nothing to do with "wording". From where I sit, this just seems like a (another) cynical ploy from Skyring to get the RA into Australia despite a clear decision on that page. It’s pointless going over and over – what Skyring calls ‘consistency of information’ should never take priority over accuracy of information, and accuracy includes not giving undue weight. How tedious does this have to be? -- Merbabu 06:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Regardless of your personal feelings on a single article, the discussion is about coming up with a wiki-wide guideline, as identified by another editor at the beginning of this section. Kindly either contribute in a positive and helpful manner, or let others do the work without interference. I also note that these are guidelines, and do not force editors to include material if there is a local consensus about it - see the discussion above. -- Pete 06:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Skyring a r g u es not to give undue weight to unnotable info over consistency of well established sections of articles when it suits his politics, I am not of course not saying he is wrong on that article, but Skyring seems to play with wikipedia policies to suit whatever argument he feels like having on any particular day. Wiki Townsvillia n 06:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) This isn't a matter of politics. Again, if you can't contribute in a positive manner, then I suggest you drop the personal attacks as well. -- Pete 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Peru is undergoing nomination for featured article status. Members of this wikiproject might be interested in posting a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Greetings, -- Victor12 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to draw this projects attention to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories. These are highly politicised discussions and anyone who goes to these discussions will see what side I'm on and I haven't looked at who is in here and don't know what all your views are. However, I think it is important that people in WP:Countries weigh in with how you consider the Palestinian Territories should fit into your categorisation systems and that you collectively provide a substantial contribution to the debate.-- Peter cohen 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have put forth a peer review for the Israel article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Israel/archive1. Comments are welcome there (and on Talk:Israel, if you prefer). -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The map on the WikiProject Countries main page is wrong. Cambodia and Indonesia are featured articles but are not marked as such. Bhutan is marked as FA when it is not and Peru is marked as GA when it is a FA. -- Victor12 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
.
Russia is now a GA.-- Miyokan 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a peer review tag for the Romania article Wikipedia:Peer review/Romania/archive2. Any help is welcomed. Nergaal 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the lists of countries by continent (eg List of African countries) and realised that it could quite easily say a lot more. So i made User:Chris_huh/List of African countries which has the capital city, flag, language, currency, gdp per capita, area and population. These are also sortable so separate lists sorted by these facts are not necessary. What do you think? C hris_huh talk 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nepal has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Victor12 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the Failed States Index rank in Template:Infobox Country. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Gini index in Template:Infobox Country. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Country#Proposal: Removal of Gini index. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The IMF has a database which will spit out historical GDP, inflation, etc. statistics it seems for any country. All the "Economy of X" articles should have this kind of data, from whatever the best sources are. I just added the series for Vietnam. -- Beland 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've joined your WikiProject, is there a template for my userpage? -- Therequiembellishere ( talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The Scotland article is up for peer review. If anyone wishes to make suggestions, they will be gratefully received. Lurker ( said · done) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
South Africa has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Victor12 ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) uh wut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.146.58 ( talk) 01:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure whether the lists of countries (eg: Countries by population) are included in this project. If not, should we consider including them? And if we do, maybe we should make a standard list of countries to base it on. Because, for example, Countries by population density includes Somaliland in its list, and Countries by area doesn't. That wouldn't matter so much the lists weren't ordered, but they are. Unless anyone has any comments to the contrary, I'll add the lists to the project, then start creating a standardised list of countries. Whether to include Somaliland, Abkhazia and similar will be a matter for discussion. I think for now I'll base it largely on officially assigned ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes. Hopefully, this list will eventually be incorporated into all the country list pages. Briefplan ( talk) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! There is a discussion at List of countries by formation dates that concernes this wikiproject. It relates to the fact that some users include former colonies (such as Algeria or Western Sahara) in the columm for the last territorial changes of their respective colonial power, and this because "formely" such colonies were considered "provinces". I believe this discussion and its result may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre ( talk) 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There's been some discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop about how to increase featured article production. One suggestion that came up was to find a couple of volunteers who had plenty of experience working on FA articles, and ally them with an active team from a WikiProject that knew the content side of things and was interested in taking an article to FA. The goal would be to get another FA, help the project ramp up FA production, and discover if this is a good way of sharing skills between content editors and people who know the FA process. We have three volunteers: Awadewit, Mike Christie and Wrad. So is anyone from this project interested in picking a country article to bring to featured level? If so, we're certainly ready to help. The things we think we can help on include:
We won't know much, if anything, about the content of the particular article we'd work on. In a way that's the point of this idea -- the editors at this project presumably know and are interested in the content, which is why you're part of the project. What we think we can contribute is the other skills needed to take an article to featured level. If you're interested, please post a response right here. The first question would be which country article to pick. Our only input there would be to avoid starting with a country that we know is likely to have some very contentious issues, such as Israel, the United States of America or Iraq. It would be better to try this idea out on a less controversial article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Kuwait needs a lot attention. Somebody please help me improve it. -- RajatKansal ( talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. May I recomend that one of the talkpage wikiproject countries templates be deleted: Template:WikiProject Countries or Template:WPCountries. I propose the former as it doesn't have a "class" parameter inbeded in it. Furthermore the later one seems to be on more talkpages. I am guessing that the second one got created accidentally after not knowing that the first one existed? Cheers. Calaka ( talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently several countries are showing "crime and punishment" sections (e.g. US and Nigeria). These sections are placed under "demographics". I doubt whether that is the good position inside the article. Personally I would list such a topic under "law and justice" or a similar heading, never under demographics. Can I have your opinions; how to deal with this? Thanks Arnoutf ( talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been a tremendous discussion regarding this section of the article for some countries in Latin America. I am trying to insert a section that talks about crime in Mexico, which is at high rates, but so far I've been unsuccessful. The problem is the current editors of that Article, Mexico, most of them are mexicans who wish to create a good image of the country. The page of one of the editors for that article: User:Supaman89, reads this: Que onda!, I'm an 18 year old Mexican citizen who's been contributing to Wikipedia for a while now, in both English and Español. I think it's been about two years since the first time registered, which by the way was in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I have to say that I've come across some really frustrating situations, which just reinforced my patriotism to this country, and made me focus on one thing... changing the wrong idea that some people have about Mexico, which most of the times doesn't even come close to how Mexico is really like. So from his profile, it's quite clear that due to patriotism, the contents of Mexico article may be compromised. When trying to include a section about crime for that country, I was hit by extreme resistance, see discussion page [ [1]] -- Mhsb ( talk) 04:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The article, List of autonomous areas by country, is currently up for nomination as a Featured List at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country. If you have the time, please vote on the article so that it can be improved if necessarily or promoted if it deserves it. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your opinion on the Western Sahara article? Is it proper to use {{ Infobox Country}} for an article on a disputed territory, tweaked to represent the territorial dispute? Note that at Talk:Kosovo, the pro-independence crowd is pushing for a merge of the article on the disputed territory, Kosovo (region) with the article on the recently declared Republic, confusingly located at Kosovo. To concerns related to WP:NPOV, they suggest the article should have two Country Infoboxes, one for each side of the dispute. Do you have any comments on that? See Talk:Kosovo#Info_Boxes_-_The_next_step_in_our_Kosovo_Article_-_PLEASE_give_your_opinion. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeap, country specific infoboxes have come up again. It's a new flavor added to an old problem that we've discussed here before. This is happening over at Talk:Wales#Info_box_color_options and you're invited. — MJCdetroit (yak) 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A minor issue at Edward VIII of the United Kingdom has got me wondering about format regarding countries. Namely, is it common or uncommon to include a country after the name of a state or province? For example, would one write: Los Angeles, California, United States, or simply: Los Angeles, California? Ditto for Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, or just Sydney, New South Wales. From my observations the latter is sufficient, and by far the most commonplace. However, I'd like to garner some other opinions so as to avoid problems in future. Thanks in advance. -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Country styled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — -- Jza84 | Talk 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Joowwww ( talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
An FAC is now open for Ukraine. All comments are appreciated. Thanks, Bogdan що? 12:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 238 articles are assigned to this project, of which 133, or 55.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see this project tagging talk pages in lieu of the dormant Wikipedia:WikiProject Country subdivisions and doing some work integrating the verbiage in articles consistent with Template:Types_of_administrative_country_subdivision( talk links history).
Further, terms and article stubs like
Autonomous district and many other subdivision level articles linked by the template are likely to remain mere stubs unless a group of editors experienced at similar naming issues gets involved. Note also there are:
Autonomous region,
Autonomous province,
Autonomous state, and whether there is a real difference or not needs some project looking after them and providing a guiding hand, if for no other reason, than to provide some uniformity. Best regards. //
Fra
nkB
19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
On the
discussion page of Georgia there is a heated discussion how to deal with the locator (and other maps) of Georgia now that S. Ossetia and Abhkazia are no longer under the control of the central Georgian government and have become de facto independent. Officially the UN has not recognised this independence.
The issue raised repeatedly is how to deal with this issue on maps. I (and another editor) have no strong opinion (while some others have) and want to follow Wiki broad consensus on this. Therefore, I would like to raise this point in this project to come up with a suggestion how to deal with it in all such cases (I know of Georgia-S Ossetia-Abhkazia, Cyprus-Turkish Cyprus, Serbia-Kosovo, China-Taiwan-Tibet, Marocco-Western Sahara, and perhaps Israel-Golan; but there maybe other cases where such a solution could apply).
The issue is if, and if so how we should deal with this issue on the maps.
The options are
Any opinions are welcome. Arnoutf ( talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello people! I read the whole discussion page, and here's my opinion about this: The best option is the third one, because it's the most informative, and it most corresponds to reality on the ground. The two breakaway entities are not under Georgian control anymore, yet they haven't achieved enough international recognition. Keeping the old map is politically biased, and akin to saying the Earth is flat because all people haven't agreed yet on its actual shape. Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.188.44 ( talk) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
UN officially has neither denied the two new states independence, nor recognised it. the reason is UN does not take decisions about states independence at all. Recognition is a matter of sovereign state policy. To use different colour seems to be the best option possible, as part of the UN members recognises SO and Abkhazia, including one Security Council member, and the other part does not. It is just the same that, IMHO, should be done to Serbia map. FeelSunny ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I was just wondering of another member of the project could take a cursory look at the New Zealand article and give a bit of a review, not as an actaul review for GA or FA status or anything, but a glance just to see what needs doing and report it back to here or my talk page just so see whats what. Thanks, Taifar ious1 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think the UN view is the most correct. Besides THIS IS NOT A KOSOVO case. Georgians were the victims of the ethnic cleansing from their homes not someone else. And in General the whole context was Russian defacto annexation of those Georgian territory's. The ABSOLUTE majority of the UN countries recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia("Samachablo region") as Georgian territories. Excluding Nicaragua and Russia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikide ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been two highly relevant suggestions over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Countries_take_precedence and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Naming_convention_for_country_names that could greatly use discussion and input, not to mention initial proposals from interested editors. + Hexagon1 ( t) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current countries . Reasons
Mr Taz 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at these three country articles: Belgium, Lebanon and Turkey. Each one is using a different map format. Shouldn't they be standardized? Eklipse ( talk) 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! The United Kingdom article (an article in the top 20 most visited ever, and the 2nd most linked article on WP) has just been delisted from its WP:GA status, which is a great shame. It's in a terrible state; lists, unsourced paragraphs, single sentence sections, bad spelling, bad formatting and bad MOS. It's in a dire state, and is in need of high quality, active and impartial editors like never before. Is anybody willing to come to the rescue here. This has got to be one of this project's Top priority articles that's being slowly overlooked and overshadowed. If you have a collaboration of the month, now really is the time for this one. -- Jza84 | Talk 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So I put in the latitude and longitude for the capital Tiraspol for the article Transnistria. When I use the Operator plugin for Firefox to map the article, Google Maps doesn't recognize the name of the country, but Operator doesn't seem to pick up on the lat/long data. Can someone familiar with the template fix the microformat output of Template:Infobox Country? -- Beland ( talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
List of anthems by country has been nominated as a featured list candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. If you do not believe that the article can be improved further, feel free to Support it. Otherwise, if you find issues with the article that are actionable, then please Oppose it with a list of items that can be improved on. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 12:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate going on at Talk:List of countries right now that I think some of you might be interested in. If you could drop by and give your comments, that'd be appreciated. (Beware-- It's a big discussion!) Orange Tuesday ( talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
After much debate, a proposal here has been made to make List of countries redirect to a disambiguation page at the existing Lists of countries (note plural). Lists of countries will point to the many other 'country' lists - List of sovereign states (Which is almost identical), List of nations (under development) etc. The idea is that the word country is better disambiguated from the 'top level', and the choice of pre-existing articles that the disambiguation page can offer should avoid many of the reoccurring inter-list disputes. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if this is the right place to ask, but there's a fix needed at Template talk:Country data Serbia and Montenegro if a kind Admin could take care of it. Regards, jnestorius( talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a 'joint' Requested Move proposal, here at Ireland Talk, that proposes moving Ireland to Ireland (island), and removing the forked 'Irish state/country' material that has appeared over the years (including additional material on Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland would then be the principle article for the Irish state/country, as it was originally intended to be. Concurrently, Ireland (disambiguation) would be Moved to the vacated Ireland, so the many uses of 'Ireland' that refer to the country/state (along with those uses referring to the geographical/island use), would now offer the reader a choice of destination. The Move was based on ongoing discussion at the Ireland disambiguation taskforce (see its Talk page specifically). In addition to the above Requested Move proposal, there are alternative suggestions currently underway at the taskforce Talk, such as changing the direction of the two main Ireland articles simply by editing them, including most recently; 1) Promoting Ireland as the official country/state article (not Republic of Ireland), and building up Ireland (island) as a geographical/island article, and of 2) Ensuring Ireland is a geographical/island article only (and so removing much of the forked country/state-related material). Neither of those options would require Ireland (disambiguation) to be moved to Ireland. If you support (or reject) the disambiguation page option for Ireland, please vote in the Requested Move poll, or perhaps consider commenting at the taskforce on one of the other options. As some options are 'edit-only' (and do not need to be polled), it is looking likely that something could be moved on. In good faith, -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'm your newest member (and your 60th). I'm from Chicago,USA I hope to help you guys out! Creez34 ( talk) 02:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Brazil has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Scotland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- Mais oui! ( talk) 10:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been started here on whether the map locating the United Kingdom in that article's infobox should show the EU or not. Comments are welcome. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have traveled from WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where we seek wider opinions on whether {{ coord}} should offer a N/S/E/W labeled format for decimal coordinates (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W) either as an option or by default, or if the existing unlabeled format (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W) is sufficient. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks! -- GregU ( talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't you know that the articles written first would be the ones with the weakest (and oldest and most out-of-date) outline? I was looking for suggestions as to where "infrastructure" should go. In the United States, it is under "economy". Guess I can't point to here as a reference. Ironically, I could point to a reference if it were a state or city. Oh, well. Student7 ( talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please join the new discussion about Guidelines for "China" vs. "PRC" usage on the People's Republic of China article -- Cybercobra ( talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the list of topics for countries, I can't see any mention of where flora and fauna should go. I don't know if it's a subject worthy of inclusion in the main country article, but presumably there should be a subarticle on it? Cheers — SteveRwanda ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Pakistan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Cambodia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:00, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge where there seems to be all the usual confusion about the difference between, state, county and territory. -- PBS ( talk) 12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For a discussion on country lists see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries. -- PBS ( talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I love the map (or at least the minimized version I can see of it)
but am in desperate need of help to actually be able to use it. Would anyone here be kind enough to go the page's talk page (or I can move it here) and be able to tell me what the problem is?
Kostantino888Z ( talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Each country has an outline in Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge.
But they are not complete.
I'd like to propose a contest to pit country WikiProjects against each other in developing the best country outline.
We're going to need judges.
We're going to need awards.
Any ideas?
What should the notices say?
What should the rules be?
How long should the contest last? 2 months?
How should we gather WikiProjects as participants? Just let any member of a WikiProject sign that WikiProject up?
How many winners should there be?
What could participants post on their user pages if their WikiProject wins?
The Transhumanist 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been active on the outlines for a while now, but I understand that certain country outlines are significantly better than others? So wouldn't that mean an unfair advantage for certain country WikiProjects? -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting proposal and could be a good way to foster new enthusiasm based on national pride, or even those such as myself who enjoy a challenge and would make less-than-obvious choices. After reading the above comment about outlines, I was thinking that the sheer number of countries probably means many of the WikiProjects are nonexistent or at least inactive. If the competition becomes a reality, I therefore suggest one of those notices at the top of every page (sorry, I'm not familiar with the technology behind it). That way people who would be interested but normally keep to their own area of the wiki will be informed of its existence.
Additionally, I'd favour a longer duration rather than a shorter one. Aside from the obvious rationale such as allowing more people to participate, inter-library loans (which all article writers should take advantage of if you're not - public libraries are there for a reason!) and purchasing obscure books from online stores can take a while, and I remember an article I'd copyedited and watchlisted spending a month as a Good Article nominee. But if something else develops that's closer to the Spotlight than Seven Years in Tibet, that's fine too. Recognizance ( talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is related to the "Flora and fauna" section above.
I am working on environment articles with the view to create a complete series of Environment of X articles for all countries (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environment by country and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Planning). I have discovered that the country articles are not consistent with links to the Environment of X (where they exist) and I feel that "Environment" deserves its own level two heading. Environment (not to be confused with ecology) is a large body of knowledge to describe, collate and reference. It is also of an increasing interest given the number of environmental organisations and amount of exposure in the media as well as the large number of environmental publications. Environment of X links in country articles are put under the geography section. I don't think this is appropriate since environment covers flora, fauna, climate change, environmental law, green politics, environmental issues, pollution, waste, protected areas etc. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help find references for: Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The population given for Cook Islands is wrong. The entry for Cook Islands gives the 2006 census population as 19,589. 203.97.238.175 ( talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since Austria is a core article for this project, and Wikipedia itself, I believe that members here would agree that it is also highly important. If anyone is interested in substantially improving the article to good or featured article status, please join this discussion at Talk:Austria#Article improvement drive. Thanks for your help, Hayden120 ( talk) 04:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Something is clearly wrong here if you ask me. The current geographical map that wikipedia uses to identify where countries are(normally seen on a country page) would contradict these figures. I mean how are America and China roughly the same size and since was India 1/3 the zie of China. If you were to combine India and Pakistan together they would easily encompass more than half of China but according to these figures produced, this doesn't seem possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could a user with sophisticated ability in dealing with maps have a look at ? It hasn't been updated in a year, and no longer reflects which countries are featured or not. There are comments on the file's talk page, and in the list of featured and good articles on WikiProject Countries' main page. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In the country list there is a column for percent of total land area. The values reliably get smaller as the size of the country diminishes all the way down to 0.01%. The next smaller country shows as >0.01% (meaning greater than) when clearly it should show as <0.01% (meaning less than). I tried to edit this info but was unable to. Thanks, donangelico —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donangelico ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
North Korea is currently a good article nominee. If anyone has time to review it, that'd be swell. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please reassess the United Arab Emirates article. I believe it has geatly improved, and deserves a review. -- MoHasanie Talk 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Many "Politics of COUNTRY" articles (mostly in Europe) have an "International Organizations" section that is basically a giant list of organizations in which the country is a member or observer. For example:
The thing is, what do these lists have to do with Politics? Very little, as best I can tell. There isn't any content explaining the relevance of the group's relations with a particular international organization, either (a la Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations). Your average "Politics of" article should discuss internal politics, perhaps with a "Foreign Relations" section that links to the main Foreign Relations article and discusses the impact of other countries on internal politics as well as differing political positions on international outreach. International organization participation is pretty far down the list - diehard Euroskeptics may want the UK to withdraw from the EU, sure, but I don't think there's any political controversy about participation in ICAO or the WHO.
Basically, I recommend that one of the following be done:
or
I'd also point out that these lists don't appear to be very well maintained, so as far as we know people could have snuck in plausible but incorrect organizations that the countries aren't actually members of. Ugh. The source for these are apparently dumps of the CIA World Factbook from 2002 or so (see this really old example, or really any Politics article's earliest revision), so even if they haven't been tampered with, they may well be out of date anyway. Ideally, someone would compare all the lists against the 2009 Factbook and either source or remove any organizations not listed there. SnowFire ( talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Found here; all users welcome to participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Alerting all WikiProject Countries members that England is undergoing a reveiw for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can, thanks, -- Jza84 | Talk 14:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
Canada has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In the guidelines to writing about cities and countries we tend to provide suggestions that information about the origin of the name / the etymology is given in the history section, and - if there is enough material - that a sub-section can be created. In usage some editors prefer that the etymology details be placed in their own section - which is fine if there is enough data to justify it, and the information may be found reasonably interesting or useful to the average reader. But the question now arises as where to place a stand alone Etymology section. I often find them placed as the first section - ahead of the History section - and there is a part of me which can see the logic of that. However, there is a greater logic in having the history section first, as that is the first section that readers would expect - it is generally what encyclopedias do, and the history always comes before the name (I suppose there may be settlements and countries which were named before they existed, but these must be very rare!). Where etymologies are usually placed in dictionaries and references books is at the end of the entry - and that may be where someone interested in the etymology may be expecting to look. There may be other options as to where to place the etymology, and it would be useful to get some opinions and revisit the guidelines to make things clearer. As a starting point, here are four suggestions:
I will copy this to other related WikiProjects. SilkTork * YES! 10:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Requesting some feedback on this article, which would be deeply appreciated. See the peer review here for my comments of what kind of feedback I'm after. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Should articles about ships be added to the various country wikiprojects? All merchant ships have a port of registry and fly that country's merchant flag. Many ships have flown more than one flag in their life and thus could be said to fall under many different country Wikiprojects. Naval vessels could also be said to fall under the relevant country wikiproject. Another area is shipwrecks, could these also be said to fall under the relevant country wikiproject if not in international waters? Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Need some more eyes to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivisions, which had to be relisted to get consensus. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Needs assessment for Guyana - Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 05:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to the recent earthquake in Haiti, some editors have seen it necessary to mention this in the lead section of the Haiti country article. I consider that this goes against the consistancy principle of country articles. What is the opinion of you geography editors? -- MoRsE ( talk) 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cptnono ( talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
After the failure to create an article for the organization, User:Mesgul82 has added statistics from the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) as a separate section with a table on multiple country articles. It is possible Wikipedia:Spam and reliability has not been addressed. Giving this much weight to these certain aspects and the source is also a concern. I have removed most of them from articles that someone else had not already done or had this as a standalone section without more properly cited sources. Cptnono ( talk) 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that International rankings sections have been added to many articles including Chile and the UK. This appears to have been done by the same user as above ( User:Mesgul82) Should these be kept or removed? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As fascinating as pronounciation can be why on earth do we let it clutter up the start of articles, I've just removed some "rubbish" from the start of Tegucigalpa (nicknames with citation needed to boot) and found the IPA to be still cluttering up the introduction.
Could we remove IPA and such to infoboxes or lower sections in articles, specially for countries and capital cities? The introduction should give non-technical overview as I understand it, and loading them with citation needed and IPA isn't really productive. -- Stalfur ( talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion if the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization, redirecting now to the Template:Infobox country should be redirected to Template:Infobox organization. or if not, how to define in which cases it is appropriate to use the one or another infoboxes. You opinion is appreciated. Beagel ( talk) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone nominated Republic_of_Serbia_(federal) to be merged into Serbia. just letting you guys know. see This page for discussion. Thank You. Gman124 talk 03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
need standardising :content,ordr[popup! etc-- i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl[=alias ( talk) 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
more rneded:fe ind.oc.isl2clear loc.maps!!-- i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl[sven70=alias ( talk) 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone. The article Israel is currently at featured article review, and has been moved to the FARC section. In this section, editors make keep/delist declarations regarding the featured status of the article. Editors from this project are invited to comment on the FARC. Thanks in advance for any comments, Dana boomer ( talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class country articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently encountering a problem on whether "Turkmen" or "Turkmenistani" should be used to describe Turkmenistan people. I do think that "Turkmen" is the correct term per Category:Turkmen people but since many huge categories uses "Turkmenistani" e.g. Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople, Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople stubs and Category:Turkmenistani footballers, I think I shall start a discussion here to reach consensus.
Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a Turkmen. I've never heard of -stani usage in Turkmenistan. Turkmen is accepted officially. All the matter here is Pakistani usage which I think because of the fact that there are many ethnicities in Pakistan instead of a majority. Pak was not acceptable as the adjective form of nationality. Then Pakistani was coined. Mainly the majority's name determines the countries demonym. Ex. French, German, etc. How do you like Russian presidential election, 2008? According to -stani logic, Russian is not proper here. Russia is a multi-ethnical country. Of course I don't agree with that. The word Russian here indicates the whole country, like Turkmen does. As I said before, Pakistan is the only exception, and for their sake the other -stan countries cannot be deprived of their ethnical (factually national) demonym. The reason behind is that Pakistan is 40 years older than other -stan countries, it is known to English-speaking world 40 years earlier than the new -stan republics. All five -stan countries call themselves with their stani-less names. Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik, Kyrgyz, Kazakh all encompass all the citizens regardless of their ethnicity, like French, German, Dutch etc. We can make them ridiculous like Frenchi, Germani, Dutchi, Italiani which is totally inacceptle for the -stan adjectives as well. Pakistan is welcome. It is an exception. -- Hanberke ( talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The CIA WFB disagrees, though: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ti.html#People — Nightstallion 09:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I request neutral input for the survey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_New_Guinea#Requested_move
I also bring to your attention the political interest in the article itself, notably the claiming of the article as part of 'WikiProject Indonesia'. With all due respect, the islands of South East Asia and on the Australian continental shelf are geographic regions whereas the Republic of Indonesia is a political state. There are already separate articles on the political and geographic subjects as partially listed at West Papua. I don't want to waste time with an edit war with writers who feel acknowledgement of the geographic region of West Papua is an insult to the republic; but, I think a claim that the article is part of 'WikiProject Melanesia' would be more appropriate given the scope of the article. Daeron ( talk) 02:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The above article has been fully protected for a month, to allow the dispute to be resolved, and a consensus reached.
Any comments from knowledgeable people from this WikiProject would be appreciated. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the "Area", "Establishment" and "Population" headings are now centered in all the Infobox country iboxes. There was nothing in the edit history, so was this some sort of internal improvement? Is there a standardization program in the works? For example, {{
Infobox settlement}} still has "Area" and "Population"
left-justified. This new centering makes the headers unlike all the other headers in the ibox that are still left-justified, so the centering seems to detract from the ibox. Can we get the centering changed back to left-justified for the "Area", "Population" and "Establishment" headers, please?
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I've recently been involved in a discussion at the Somalia article's talk page regarding the general quality of that article. I disagree with the focus the article has (its sections on energy and telecommunications, for example, seem much too long, while its section on politics seems to ignore "elephants in the room") and with the general tone (it seems to go out of its way to present the country in a positive light). I have tried to explain my concerns to frequent editors on the talk page, but one in particular seems to strongly disagree. I really don't want to battle through contentious edits, could some people here go and take a look at the article and give their two cents on whether I'm in the wrong here or he is? Thanks a lot, TastyCakes ( talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an RFC at the Côte d'Ivoire talk page about whether Wikipedia should be use the name "Côte d'Ivoire" or "Ivory Coast". Those who would like to express their opinion and participate in the discussion should do at that talk page. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place here over how states are listed on List of sovereign states. Any input from members of this project is welcome. TDL ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Bangladesh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A deletion discussion for a page within the scope of your project, List of largest empires, has been created. You are welcome to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest empires (5th nomination). Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Philipmj24 ( talk) 03:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted this comparison of all the countries I know are featured articles, mostly gained from the outdated map on this wikiproject. Besides showing easy options for fixes, it also raises a couple of questions about the template we have here. The major thing I see is that many of these articles have a separate Foreign relations and military section, and some have a separate International rankings section. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Countries articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I opened a FLC and I think it falls within the scope of the projects as counties represent the first level subdivisions in Romania. Any comments would be appreciated. Nergaal ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the policy on subsidiary country articles on a topic not itself notable enough to make the main country page? For example, International rankings of Algeria, Archeology of Algeria. I was about to go through every country and add the "international rankings" link to the see also section, per a request on my talk page, but it seems that the prevailing convention and also the WP:SEEALSO guideline do not encourage this, so I'm now wondering whether to proceed. Any opinions? — Amakuru ( talk) 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys,
For your information, I have just nominated Rwanda (which I have been working on a lot recently) for peer review.
The peer review page is: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rwanda/archive2
I would very much appreciate any input into that, as part of my overall goal of elevating the article to WP:FA status.
Thanks! — Amakuru ( talk) 21:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as the banner of this project is on the article talk page. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion at Template:Countries of Europe is an example of this continuing argument. We've got to decide if E/S/W/NI belong in such articles, or if the UK is suficent. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a request move on the template here. Template_talk:Countries_of_Europe#Requested_move BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may also be an issue on these templates.
{{
Capitals in Europe}}
, {{
List of European capitals by region}}
, {{
Languages of Europe}}
2 of these state Sovereign States yet still include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in small text and brackets after the UK. The other says European states and territories, but someone has added to the second row about non-sovereign territories or constituent nations appearing in small capitals. Do England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need removing from these templates? the response here and over on the countries of Europe template seems to be against their inclusion, and thats with the title country.. here its actually saying sovereign state / state, but including them. BritishWatcher ( talk) 21:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Europe topic}}
template. What are England etc. doing in the sovereign states section anyway? They should exist only in the last row, the dependencies and others, if anywhere at all (No, the word country does not appear on the Europe Topic template). The third row has its own issues anyway.
Chipmunkdavis (
talk)
14:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Comment Because of the nature of the 1707 Act of Union, the UK Parliament is not sovereign in Scotland. We even have a WP section about this Parliamentary_sovereignty#Scotland. Essentially in Scotland, Scottish law is sovereign and that law can challenge any act of Parliament laid down by the UK government. The Act of union with Ireland similarly allowed Irish law to challenge Parliament decisions and this is retained in Northern Ireland as do the legislative bodies in the crown protectorates (the channel islands and Isle of Man). This is why questions of sovereignty do not apply to the UK, the UK Parliament cannot make any sovereign decision on behalf of the nations of Scotland or Northern Ireland or crown protectorates that cannot be challenged and over-ruled within those countries. Scotland also has border inviolability which was why in 1999 the UK government had to get the agreement of the Scottish Office (then run by the same party as the UK government) to make the legislative changes to move the Scotland/England Border in favour of England. Scotland also retains an independent army of 100 men under the command of the Duke of Atholl (who may serve some of their time in the British Army but do so separately from their commitments to the Atholl Highlanders), separate religion, are recognised a separate by many of the world's sporting bodies,they have the ability to independently print banknotes and further powers by which sovereignty can be measured. The devolution of 1998 did not give Scotland or Northern Ireland any "Devolved Powers" it simply allowed the powers they already had to be managed by a a selection of elected officials rather than the solitary figure of the Lord Advocate - it did also allow the ability for these officials to make decisions on distribution of taxation; something that had previously been done under the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. The arrangement of Scotland and Ireland within the union is no different to the arrangement of Germany or France within the European Union, they retain much of their sovereignty but chose to pool some of that power with other nations for mutual benefit. This is why it is not just a nationalist view that these countries are treated separately because they, like Monaco or Lichtenstein have far more sovereignty than a state within a federal system.
Wales on the other hand is a far more complex issue, it's laws were swept away in it's union along with much of it's sovereignty - even today laws passed at the Welsh assembly have to be scrutinised by Westminster. There may be scope within the act of union that allow it also to overturn acts of parliament but I am not well enough versed in the wording or nature of the act to confirm if this is the case. Either way, WP should not be taking a position that the UK government is sovereign it should be respecting the sources that may identify an individual country as relevant or may identify the whole union as relevant. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Are we all in general agreement, that these articles/templates/lists etc, need to be RM'd from country & capital to sovereign state & sovereign capital? Should this be taken to a Wikipedia-wide forum? GoodDay ( talk) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Capitals in Europe}}
and {{
Languages of Europe}}
BritishWatcher (
talk)
18:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we subheading the different debates? It seems that the Countries in Europe template will be moved. Discussion of the others is ongoing, so it can either be continued here or at their respective talk pages. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 11:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We could instead create a new section for primary politicial divisions, but set the default logic to #ifexist
, meaning the section and its links wouldn't appear except where specific articles exist. This would allow readers to find specific articles where and when they exist, and would be beneficial in those cases where the articles at a national level are missing. Templates are for navigation, which means if there's an article for a topic, readers should be able to find the link.
Nightw
13:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
TLDR, sorry. Back to divide. Ironically, the full sentence referenced was "The UK is divided into four countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.". Please explain why it is quite acceptable to use a reliable source to show use of the word 'divide'. Yet that same source, even though it is part of the same sentence, is apparently unacceptble to verify inclusion of the UK countries in articles and templates of countries.
There is no need to choose what is or isn't a country (which is inherently POV) if reliable sources are used to determine which entry should be included. What qualifies you, or any other editor, to define its meaning? Please explain why you think
Neutral point of view, a supposedly non-negotiable, core policy should be ignored.
Daicaregos (
talk)
11:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I had no intention of posting on this page as I think there are people here who will not be persuaded by any argument. I am though going to cut and paste a post I made to Dai's talk page and will leave it there without any further comment. I don't expect it to change anyones mind, but hope they will understand why some of us find it strange that a list of countries should not include all those verifiably called countries.
"The fact is, there are millions of people throughout the world who know that Scotland, Wales and England are countries. I would think that they would be rather puzzled that they are not included in an article titled 'List of countries', not to mention those who don't know and may now never find out. To rename an article (or a template) for the express purpose of excluding them does a disservice to the reader. Alas, there are enough people on here that don't see it that way and will ensure that no list will include them. They are countries and yet there will be no list on wikipedia that will inform the reader of that. It's a sad state of affairs, but after being around here for a while it doesn't surprise me."
Jack 1958 ( talk) 11:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We do agree (I assume) that 'country' can mean more then one thing. Like Minister for example. GoodDay ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above section was getting extremely lengthy, please continue discussion here. Outback the koala ( talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles (including lists and templates) should do exactly what they say on the tin. If it is called 'list of countries …', any territory that reliable sources verify as a country should be included on that article. 'Sovereign state' and 'country' are not synonymous. It is not up to us as editors to define a 'country'. It is our job to reflect what reliable sources say are countries. That way, editor POV is removed. If reliable sources say a territory is a country, but it is not included on the article because editors want the article to mean something else (sovereign state perhaps), the name of the article should be changed to reflect its content. It may be simplistic, but this is my understanding of Neutral point of view; a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which says: NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Millions of people in the UK (and elsewhere) consider England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to be countries, despite being perfectly aware that they are not sovereign; a valid a viewpoint that should be reflected on Wikipedia. Daicaregos ( talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I oppose adding non sovereign countries to templates, it still leaves open the debate about what else is allowed to be included as has been gone over many times in the past. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need to be removed from templates where they appear in the sovereign state section. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Capitals in Europe}}
{{
Languages of Europe}}
is where they appear in the sovereign state section. If new rows should be added to accommodate things like non sovereign countries and states is another matter, but they should be removed from these two.
BritishWatcher (
talk)
17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose including any non-sovereign entities on these templates and agree with the suggestions (far) above that any template labeled as "country" that is non-geographical in nature, but political should be renamed to "sovereign state" to avoid any confusion. Where ENG, SCOT, WLS, and NI are, they should be removed posthaste. I dont agree with having an exception for the UK, it would only open a floodgate of other requests for inclusion. Outback the koala ( talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Flags of stateless nations and Coat of arms of stateless nations have been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Malaysia for Peer Review in the hope of getting it to GA and maybe FA. The page of the review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Malaysia/archive2, any comments are welcome. Also, if anyone sees something easily copyedited, if they did so that would be appreciated. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of states with limited recognition for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nightw 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 14 |
Discussions at Talk:Australia and Talk:God Save the Queen have led me here for some guidance. The debate at Australia focuses on the inclusion of God Save the Queen in the facts table as the Royal Anthem of Australia, following the format on most Commonwealth Realm articles. The debate at Talk:Australia seemed to conclude that only the national anthem should be included in the facts table, and the Royal Anthem should be footnoted. However, after reading through the guidelines here on facts tables, I see no provision even for a national anthem to be included. Is there a policy regarding national anthems and royal anthems? If not, I feel strongly that one should be created as it would have scope over many articles on Wikipedia. -- G2bambino 20:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, where is this? I'm looking at
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Facts table, and I don't see any mention of anthems at all. --
G2bambino
18:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What about those countries such as the UK that don't have an official national anthem, but do have a royal anthem? TharkunColl 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
It’s got nothing to do with "wording". From where I sit, this just seems like a (another) cynical ploy from Skyring to get the RA into Australia despite a clear decision on that page. It’s pointless going over and over – what Skyring calls ‘consistency of information’ should never take priority over accuracy of information, and accuracy includes not giving undue weight. How tedious does this have to be? -- Merbabu 06:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Regardless of your personal feelings on a single article, the discussion is about coming up with a wiki-wide guideline, as identified by another editor at the beginning of this section. Kindly either contribute in a positive and helpful manner, or let others do the work without interference. I also note that these are guidelines, and do not force editors to include material if there is a local consensus about it - see the discussion above. -- Pete 06:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that Skyring a r g u es not to give undue weight to unnotable info over consistency of well established sections of articles when it suits his politics, I am not of course not saying he is wrong on that article, but Skyring seems to play with wikipedia policies to suit whatever argument he feels like having on any particular day. Wiki Townsvillia n 06:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC) This isn't a matter of politics. Again, if you can't contribute in a positive manner, then I suggest you drop the personal attacks as well. -- Pete 07:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Peru is undergoing nomination for featured article status. Members of this wikiproject might be interested in posting a review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peru. Greetings, -- Victor12 12:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I want to draw this projects attention to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 7#Category:Cities, towns and villages in the Palestinian territories. These are highly politicised discussions and anyone who goes to these discussions will see what side I'm on and I haven't looked at who is in here and don't know what all your views are. However, I think it is important that people in WP:Countries weigh in with how you consider the Palestinian Territories should fit into your categorisation systems and that you collectively provide a substantial contribution to the debate.-- Peter cohen 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I have put forth a peer review for the Israel article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Israel/archive1. Comments are welcome there (and on Talk:Israel, if you prefer). -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The map on the WikiProject Countries main page is wrong. Cambodia and Indonesia are featured articles but are not marked as such. Bhutan is marked as FA when it is not and Peru is marked as GA when it is a FA. -- Victor12 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
.
Russia is now a GA.-- Miyokan 01:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have placed a peer review tag for the Romania article Wikipedia:Peer review/Romania/archive2. Any help is welcomed. Nergaal 05:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I was looking at the lists of countries by continent (eg List of African countries) and realised that it could quite easily say a lot more. So i made User:Chris_huh/List of African countries which has the capital city, flag, language, currency, gdp per capita, area and population. These are also sortable so separate lists sorted by these facts are not necessary. What do you think? C hris_huh talk 13:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Nepal has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Victor12 00:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello there, A straw poll has opened at this section of the United Kingdom talk page regarding the use of the Ulster Banner for that article's circumstances only. To capture a representative result as possible, you are invited to pass your opinion there. If joining the poll, please keep a cool head, and remain civil. Hope to see you there, Jza84 22:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion regarding the inclusion of the Failed States Index rank in Template:Infobox Country. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Country#Failed States Index rank. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 16:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion regarding the inclusion of the Gini index in Template:Infobox Country. Comments and suggestions are welcome at Template talk:Infobox Country#Proposal: Removal of Gini index. – Black Falcon ( Talk) 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
The IMF has a database which will spit out historical GDP, inflation, etc. statistics it seems for any country. All the "Economy of X" articles should have this kind of data, from whatever the best sources are. I just added the series for Vietnam. -- Beland 21:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I've joined your WikiProject, is there a template for my userpage? -- Therequiembellishere ( talk) 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 01:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. The Scotland article is up for peer review. If anyone wishes to make suggestions, they will be gratefully received. Lurker ( said · done) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
South Africa has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Victor12 ( talk) 01:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) uh wut —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.146.58 ( talk) 01:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not sure whether the lists of countries (eg: Countries by population) are included in this project. If not, should we consider including them? And if we do, maybe we should make a standard list of countries to base it on. Because, for example, Countries by population density includes Somaliland in its list, and Countries by area doesn't. That wouldn't matter so much the lists weren't ordered, but they are. Unless anyone has any comments to the contrary, I'll add the lists to the project, then start creating a standardised list of countries. Whether to include Somaliland, Abkhazia and similar will be a matter for discussion. I think for now I'll base it largely on officially assigned ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes. Hopefully, this list will eventually be incorporated into all the country list pages. Briefplan ( talk) 16:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone! There is a discussion at List of countries by formation dates that concernes this wikiproject. It relates to the fact that some users include former colonies (such as Algeria or Western Sahara) in the columm for the last territorial changes of their respective colonial power, and this because "formely" such colonies were considered "provinces". I believe this discussion and its result may interest you. Thank you! The Ogre ( talk) 10:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There's been some discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Content review/workshop about how to increase featured article production. One suggestion that came up was to find a couple of volunteers who had plenty of experience working on FA articles, and ally them with an active team from a WikiProject that knew the content side of things and was interested in taking an article to FA. The goal would be to get another FA, help the project ramp up FA production, and discover if this is a good way of sharing skills between content editors and people who know the FA process. We have three volunteers: Awadewit, Mike Christie and Wrad. So is anyone from this project interested in picking a country article to bring to featured level? If so, we're certainly ready to help. The things we think we can help on include:
We won't know much, if anything, about the content of the particular article we'd work on. In a way that's the point of this idea -- the editors at this project presumably know and are interested in the content, which is why you're part of the project. What we think we can contribute is the other skills needed to take an article to featured level. If you're interested, please post a response right here. The first question would be which country article to pick. Our only input there would be to avoid starting with a country that we know is likely to have some very contentious issues, such as Israel, the United States of America or Iraq. It would be better to try this idea out on a less controversial article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Kuwait needs a lot attention. Somebody please help me improve it. -- RajatKansal ( talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. May I recomend that one of the talkpage wikiproject countries templates be deleted: Template:WikiProject Countries or Template:WPCountries. I propose the former as it doesn't have a "class" parameter inbeded in it. Furthermore the later one seems to be on more talkpages. I am guessing that the second one got created accidentally after not knowing that the first one existed? Cheers. Calaka ( talk) 04:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently several countries are showing "crime and punishment" sections (e.g. US and Nigeria). These sections are placed under "demographics". I doubt whether that is the good position inside the article. Personally I would list such a topic under "law and justice" or a similar heading, never under demographics. Can I have your opinions; how to deal with this? Thanks Arnoutf ( talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been a tremendous discussion regarding this section of the article for some countries in Latin America. I am trying to insert a section that talks about crime in Mexico, which is at high rates, but so far I've been unsuccessful. The problem is the current editors of that Article, Mexico, most of them are mexicans who wish to create a good image of the country. The page of one of the editors for that article: User:Supaman89, reads this: Que onda!, I'm an 18 year old Mexican citizen who's been contributing to Wikipedia for a while now, in both English and Español. I think it's been about two years since the first time registered, which by the way was in the Spanish Wikipedia, and I have to say that I've come across some really frustrating situations, which just reinforced my patriotism to this country, and made me focus on one thing... changing the wrong idea that some people have about Mexico, which most of the times doesn't even come close to how Mexico is really like. So from his profile, it's quite clear that due to patriotism, the contents of Mexico article may be compromised. When trying to include a section about crime for that country, I was hit by extreme resistance, see discussion page [ [1]] -- Mhsb ( talk) 04:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The article, List of autonomous areas by country, is currently up for nomination as a Featured List at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of autonomous areas by country. If you have the time, please vote on the article so that it can be improved if necessarily or promoted if it deserves it. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
What is your opinion on the Western Sahara article? Is it proper to use {{ Infobox Country}} for an article on a disputed territory, tweaked to represent the territorial dispute? Note that at Talk:Kosovo, the pro-independence crowd is pushing for a merge of the article on the disputed territory, Kosovo (region) with the article on the recently declared Republic, confusingly located at Kosovo. To concerns related to WP:NPOV, they suggest the article should have two Country Infoboxes, one for each side of the dispute. Do you have any comments on that? See Talk:Kosovo#Info_Boxes_-_The_next_step_in_our_Kosovo_Article_-_PLEASE_give_your_opinion. dab (𒁳) 09:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeap, country specific infoboxes have come up again. It's a new flavor added to an old problem that we've discussed here before. This is happening over at Talk:Wales#Info_box_color_options and you're invited. — MJCdetroit (yak) 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
A minor issue at Edward VIII of the United Kingdom has got me wondering about format regarding countries. Namely, is it common or uncommon to include a country after the name of a state or province? For example, would one write: Los Angeles, California, United States, or simply: Los Angeles, California? Ditto for Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, or just Sydney, New South Wales. From my observations the latter is sufficient, and by far the most commonplace. However, I'd like to garner some other opinions so as to avoid problems in future. Thanks in advance. -- G2bambino ( talk) 16:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Template:Infobox Country styled has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — -- Jza84 | Talk 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hong Kong has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Joowwww ( talk) 11:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 22:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
An FAC is now open for Ukraine. All comments are appreciated. Thanks, Bogdan що? 12:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 238 articles are assigned to this project, of which 133, or 55.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 16:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see this project tagging talk pages in lieu of the dormant Wikipedia:WikiProject Country subdivisions and doing some work integrating the verbiage in articles consistent with Template:Types_of_administrative_country_subdivision( talk links history).
Further, terms and article stubs like
Autonomous district and many other subdivision level articles linked by the template are likely to remain mere stubs unless a group of editors experienced at similar naming issues gets involved. Note also there are:
Autonomous region,
Autonomous province,
Autonomous state, and whether there is a real difference or not needs some project looking after them and providing a guiding hand, if for no other reason, than to provide some uniformity. Best regards. //
Fra
nkB
19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
On the
discussion page of Georgia there is a heated discussion how to deal with the locator (and other maps) of Georgia now that S. Ossetia and Abhkazia are no longer under the control of the central Georgian government and have become de facto independent. Officially the UN has not recognised this independence.
The issue raised repeatedly is how to deal with this issue on maps. I (and another editor) have no strong opinion (while some others have) and want to follow Wiki broad consensus on this. Therefore, I would like to raise this point in this project to come up with a suggestion how to deal with it in all such cases (I know of Georgia-S Ossetia-Abhkazia, Cyprus-Turkish Cyprus, Serbia-Kosovo, China-Taiwan-Tibet, Marocco-Western Sahara, and perhaps Israel-Golan; but there maybe other cases where such a solution could apply).
The issue is if, and if so how we should deal with this issue on the maps.
The options are
Any opinions are welcome. Arnoutf ( talk) 07:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello people! I read the whole discussion page, and here's my opinion about this: The best option is the third one, because it's the most informative, and it most corresponds to reality on the ground. The two breakaway entities are not under Georgian control anymore, yet they haven't achieved enough international recognition. Keeping the old map is politically biased, and akin to saying the Earth is flat because all people haven't agreed yet on its actual shape. Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.188.44 ( talk) 11:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
UN officially has neither denied the two new states independence, nor recognised it. the reason is UN does not take decisions about states independence at all. Recognition is a matter of sovereign state policy. To use different colour seems to be the best option possible, as part of the UN members recognises SO and Abkhazia, including one Security Council member, and the other part does not. It is just the same that, IMHO, should be done to Serbia map. FeelSunny ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I was just wondering of another member of the project could take a cursory look at the New Zealand article and give a bit of a review, not as an actaul review for GA or FA status or anything, but a glance just to see what needs doing and report it back to here or my talk page just so see whats what. Thanks, Taifar ious1 04:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I think the UN view is the most correct. Besides THIS IS NOT A KOSOVO case. Georgians were the victims of the ethnic cleansing from their homes not someone else. And in General the whole context was Russian defacto annexation of those Georgian territory's. The ABSOLUTE majority of the UN countries recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia("Samachablo region") as Georgian territories. Excluding Nicaragua and Russia itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daikide ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been two highly relevant suggestions over at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Countries_take_precedence and Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Naming_convention_for_country_names that could greatly use discussion and input, not to mention initial proposals from interested editors. + Hexagon1 ( t) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to rename Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries to Wikipedia:WikiProject Current countries . Reasons
Mr Taz 15:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at these three country articles: Belgium, Lebanon and Turkey. Each one is using a different map format. Shouldn't they be standardized? Eklipse ( talk) 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello there! The United Kingdom article (an article in the top 20 most visited ever, and the 2nd most linked article on WP) has just been delisted from its WP:GA status, which is a great shame. It's in a terrible state; lists, unsourced paragraphs, single sentence sections, bad spelling, bad formatting and bad MOS. It's in a dire state, and is in need of high quality, active and impartial editors like never before. Is anybody willing to come to the rescue here. This has got to be one of this project's Top priority articles that's being slowly overlooked and overshadowed. If you have a collaboration of the month, now really is the time for this one. -- Jza84 | Talk 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So I put in the latitude and longitude for the capital Tiraspol for the article Transnistria. When I use the Operator plugin for Firefox to map the article, Google Maps doesn't recognize the name of the country, but Operator doesn't seem to pick up on the lat/long data. Can someone familiar with the template fix the microformat output of Template:Infobox Country? -- Beland ( talk) 17:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
List of anthems by country has been nominated as a featured list candidate; the nomination can be found here. Since the article falls under this WikiProject's scope, I am posting this notice here. It currently needs more comments, so if you've got time, please comment on the nomination page. If you do not believe that the article can be improved further, feel free to Support it. Otherwise, if you find issues with the article that are actionable, then please Oppose it with a list of items that can be improved on. Thanks in advance! Gary King ( talk) 04:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 12:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There's a debate going on at Talk:List of countries right now that I think some of you might be interested in. If you could drop by and give your comments, that'd be appreciated. (Beware-- It's a big discussion!) Orange Tuesday ( talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
After much debate, a proposal here has been made to make List of countries redirect to a disambiguation page at the existing Lists of countries (note plural). Lists of countries will point to the many other 'country' lists - List of sovereign states (Which is almost identical), List of nations (under development) etc. The idea is that the word country is better disambiguated from the 'top level', and the choice of pre-existing articles that the disambiguation page can offer should avoid many of the reoccurring inter-list disputes. -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Dunno if this is the right place to ask, but there's a fix needed at Template talk:Country data Serbia and Montenegro if a kind Admin could take care of it. Regards, jnestorius( talk) 19:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a 'joint' Requested Move proposal, here at Ireland Talk, that proposes moving Ireland to Ireland (island), and removing the forked 'Irish state/country' material that has appeared over the years (including additional material on Northern Ireland). The Republic of Ireland would then be the principle article for the Irish state/country, as it was originally intended to be. Concurrently, Ireland (disambiguation) would be Moved to the vacated Ireland, so the many uses of 'Ireland' that refer to the country/state (along with those uses referring to the geographical/island use), would now offer the reader a choice of destination. The Move was based on ongoing discussion at the Ireland disambiguation taskforce (see its Talk page specifically). In addition to the above Requested Move proposal, there are alternative suggestions currently underway at the taskforce Talk, such as changing the direction of the two main Ireland articles simply by editing them, including most recently; 1) Promoting Ireland as the official country/state article (not Republic of Ireland), and building up Ireland (island) as a geographical/island article, and of 2) Ensuring Ireland is a geographical/island article only (and so removing much of the forked country/state-related material). Neither of those options would require Ireland (disambiguation) to be moved to Ireland. If you support (or reject) the disambiguation page option for Ireland, please vote in the Requested Move poll, or perhaps consider commenting at the taskforce on one of the other options. As some options are 'edit-only' (and do not need to be polled), it is looking likely that something could be moved on. In good faith, -- Matt Lewis ( talk) 17:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I'm your newest member (and your 60th). I'm from Chicago,USA I hope to help you guys out! Creez34 ( talk) 02:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Brazil has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Scotland has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- Mais oui! ( talk) 10:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A discussion has been started here on whether the map locating the United Kingdom in that article's infobox should show the EU or not. Comments are welcome. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 17:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have traveled from WikiProject Geographical coordinates, where we seek wider opinions on whether {{ coord}} should offer a N/S/E/W labeled format for decimal coordinates (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W) either as an option or by default, or if the existing unlabeled format (example: 43°07′N 79°20′W / 43.12°N 79.34°W) is sufficient. Please comment there if you have an opinion on this. Thanks! -- GregU ( talk) 17:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't you know that the articles written first would be the ones with the weakest (and oldest and most out-of-date) outline? I was looking for suggestions as to where "infrastructure" should go. In the United States, it is under "economy". Guess I can't point to here as a reference. Ironically, I could point to a reference if it were a state or city. Oh, well. Student7 ( talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
|
I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Please join the new discussion about Guidelines for "China" vs. "PRC" usage on the People's Republic of China article -- Cybercobra ( talk) 08:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the list of topics for countries, I can't see any mention of where flora and fauna should go. I don't know if it's a subject worthy of inclusion in the main country article, but presumably there should be a subarticle on it? Cheers — SteveRwanda ( talk) 22:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Pakistan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Cambodia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators. All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows ( full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to
report bugs and
request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a
"news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none
parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at
Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
Thanks. — Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:00, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge where there seems to be all the usual confusion about the difference between, state, county and territory. -- PBS ( talk) 12:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
For a discussion on country lists see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries. -- PBS ( talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I love the map (or at least the minimized version I can see of it)
but am in desperate need of help to actually be able to use it. Would anyone here be kind enough to go the page's talk page (or I can move it here) and be able to tell me what the problem is?
Kostantino888Z ( talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Each country has an outline in Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge.
But they are not complete.
I'd like to propose a contest to pit country WikiProjects against each other in developing the best country outline.
We're going to need judges.
We're going to need awards.
Any ideas?
What should the notices say?
What should the rules be?
How long should the contest last? 2 months?
How should we gather WikiProjects as participants? Just let any member of a WikiProject sign that WikiProject up?
How many winners should there be?
What could participants post on their user pages if their WikiProject wins?
The Transhumanist 00:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't been active on the outlines for a while now, but I understand that certain country outlines are significantly better than others? So wouldn't that mean an unfair advantage for certain country WikiProjects? -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
This is certainly an interesting proposal and could be a good way to foster new enthusiasm based on national pride, or even those such as myself who enjoy a challenge and would make less-than-obvious choices. After reading the above comment about outlines, I was thinking that the sheer number of countries probably means many of the WikiProjects are nonexistent or at least inactive. If the competition becomes a reality, I therefore suggest one of those notices at the top of every page (sorry, I'm not familiar with the technology behind it). That way people who would be interested but normally keep to their own area of the wiki will be informed of its existence.
Additionally, I'd favour a longer duration rather than a shorter one. Aside from the obvious rationale such as allowing more people to participate, inter-library loans (which all article writers should take advantage of if you're not - public libraries are there for a reason!) and purchasing obscure books from online stores can take a while, and I remember an article I'd copyedited and watchlisted spending a month as a Good Article nominee. But if something else develops that's closer to the Spotlight than Seven Years in Tibet, that's fine too. Recognizance ( talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
This is related to the "Flora and fauna" section above.
I am working on environment articles with the view to create a complete series of Environment of X articles for all countries (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Environment by country and Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Planning). I have discovered that the country articles are not consistent with links to the Environment of X (where they exist) and I feel that "Environment" deserves its own level two heading. Environment (not to be confused with ecology) is a large body of knowledge to describe, collate and reference. It is also of an increasing interest given the number of environmental organisations and amount of exposure in the media as well as the large number of environmental publications. Environment of X links in country articles are put under the geography section. I don't think this is appropriate since environment covers flora, fauna, climate change, environmental law, green politics, environmental issues, pollution, waste, protected areas etc. -- Alan Liefting ( talk) - 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help find references for: Greece-Kyrgyzstan relations. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The population given for Cook Islands is wrong. The entry for Cook Islands gives the 2006 census population as 19,589. 203.97.238.175 ( talk) 09:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Since Austria is a core article for this project, and Wikipedia itself, I believe that members here would agree that it is also highly important. If anyone is interested in substantially improving the article to good or featured article status, please join this discussion at Talk:Austria#Article improvement drive. Thanks for your help, Hayden120 ( talk) 04:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Something is clearly wrong here if you ask me. The current geographical map that wikipedia uses to identify where countries are(normally seen on a country page) would contradict these figures. I mean how are America and China roughly the same size and since was India 1/3 the zie of China. If you were to combine India and Pakistan together they would easily encompass more than half of China but according to these figures produced, this doesn't seem possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RRRAD ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, could a user with sophisticated ability in dealing with maps have a look at ? It hasn't been updated in a year, and no longer reflects which countries are featured or not. There are comments on the file's talk page, and in the list of featured and good articles on WikiProject Countries' main page. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 21:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
In the country list there is a column for percent of total land area. The values reliably get smaller as the size of the country diminishes all the way down to 0.01%. The next smaller country shows as >0.01% (meaning greater than) when clearly it should show as <0.01% (meaning less than). I tried to edit this info but was unable to. Thanks, donangelico —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donangelico ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
North Korea is currently a good article nominee. If anyone has time to review it, that'd be swell. -- Cybercobra ( talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please reassess the United Arab Emirates article. I believe it has geatly improved, and deserves a review. -- MoHasanie Talk 13:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Many "Politics of COUNTRY" articles (mostly in Europe) have an "International Organizations" section that is basically a giant list of organizations in which the country is a member or observer. For example:
The thing is, what do these lists have to do with Politics? Very little, as best I can tell. There isn't any content explaining the relevance of the group's relations with a particular international organization, either (a la Israel, Palestinians, and the United Nations). Your average "Politics of" article should discuss internal politics, perhaps with a "Foreign Relations" section that links to the main Foreign Relations article and discusses the impact of other countries on internal politics as well as differing political positions on international outreach. International organization participation is pretty far down the list - diehard Euroskeptics may want the UK to withdraw from the EU, sure, but I don't think there's any political controversy about participation in ICAO or the WHO.
Basically, I recommend that one of the following be done:
or
I'd also point out that these lists don't appear to be very well maintained, so as far as we know people could have snuck in plausible but incorrect organizations that the countries aren't actually members of. Ugh. The source for these are apparently dumps of the CIA World Factbook from 2002 or so (see this really old example, or really any Politics article's earliest revision), so even if they haven't been tampered with, they may well be out of date anyway. Ideally, someone would compare all the lists against the 2009 Factbook and either source or remove any organizations not listed there. SnowFire ( talk) 20:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Found here; all users welcome to participate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Alerting all WikiProject Countries members that England is undergoing a reveiw for WP:GA status. Things you can help with are listed here. Please help if you can, thanks, -- Jza84 | Talk 14:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A poll has been set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names. This is a formal vote regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The result of this poll will be binding on the affected article names for a period of two years. This poll arose from the Ireland article names case at the Arbitration Committee and the Ireland Collaboration Project. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 13 September 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). |
Canada has been nominated for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 ( talk) 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
In the guidelines to writing about cities and countries we tend to provide suggestions that information about the origin of the name / the etymology is given in the history section, and - if there is enough material - that a sub-section can be created. In usage some editors prefer that the etymology details be placed in their own section - which is fine if there is enough data to justify it, and the information may be found reasonably interesting or useful to the average reader. But the question now arises as where to place a stand alone Etymology section. I often find them placed as the first section - ahead of the History section - and there is a part of me which can see the logic of that. However, there is a greater logic in having the history section first, as that is the first section that readers would expect - it is generally what encyclopedias do, and the history always comes before the name (I suppose there may be settlements and countries which were named before they existed, but these must be very rare!). Where etymologies are usually placed in dictionaries and references books is at the end of the entry - and that may be where someone interested in the etymology may be expecting to look. There may be other options as to where to place the etymology, and it would be useful to get some opinions and revisit the guidelines to make things clearer. As a starting point, here are four suggestions:
I will copy this to other related WikiProjects. SilkTork * YES! 10:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Requesting some feedback on this article, which would be deeply appreciated. See the peer review here for my comments of what kind of feedback I'm after. Best wishes, Fritzpoll ( talk) 13:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Should articles about ships be added to the various country wikiprojects? All merchant ships have a port of registry and fly that country's merchant flag. Many ships have flown more than one flag in their life and thus could be said to fall under many different country Wikiprojects. Naval vessels could also be said to fall under the relevant country wikiproject. Another area is shipwrecks, could these also be said to fall under the relevant country wikiproject if not in international waters? Mjroots ( talk) 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Need some more eyes to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country subdivisions, which had to be relisted to get consensus. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Needs assessment for Guyana - Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 05:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Due to the recent earthquake in Haiti, some editors have seen it necessary to mention this in the lead section of the Haiti country article. I consider that this goes against the consistancy principle of country articles. What is the opinion of you geography editors? -- MoRsE ( talk) 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Israel for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cptnono ( talk) 14:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
After the failure to create an article for the organization, User:Mesgul82 has added statistics from the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) as a separate section with a table on multiple country articles. It is possible Wikipedia:Spam and reliability has not been addressed. Giving this much weight to these certain aspects and the source is also a concern. I have removed most of them from articles that someone else had not already done or had this as a standalone section without more properly cited sources. Cptnono ( talk) 06:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that International rankings sections have been added to many articles including Chile and the UK. This appears to have been done by the same user as above ( User:Mesgul82) Should these be kept or removed? -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 16:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
As fascinating as pronounciation can be why on earth do we let it clutter up the start of articles, I've just removed some "rubbish" from the start of Tegucigalpa (nicknames with citation needed to boot) and found the IPA to be still cluttering up the introduction.
Could we remove IPA and such to infoboxes or lower sections in articles, specially for countries and capital cities? The introduction should give non-technical overview as I understand it, and loading them with citation needed and IPA isn't really productive. -- Stalfur ( talk) 19:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion if the Template:Infobox Geopolitical organization, redirecting now to the Template:Infobox country should be redirected to Template:Infobox organization. or if not, how to define in which cases it is appropriate to use the one or another infoboxes. You opinion is appreciated. Beagel ( talk) 20:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone nominated Republic_of_Serbia_(federal) to be merged into Serbia. just letting you guys know. see This page for discussion. Thank You. Gman124 talk 03:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
need standardising :content,ordr[popup! etc-- i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl[=alias ( talk) 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
more rneded:fe ind.oc.isl2clear loc.maps!!-- i'v[[RSI]]>typin=v.v.hard4me!!>contactme thruMSNpl[sven70=alias ( talk) 01:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello everyone. The article Israel is currently at featured article review, and has been moved to the FARC section. In this section, editors make keep/delist declarations regarding the featured status of the article. Editors from this project are invited to comment on the FARC. Thanks in advance for any comments, Dana boomer ( talk) 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
| ||||||||
An example of a book cover, taken from Book:Hadronic Matter |
As detailed in last week's Signpost, WildBot has been patrolling Wikipedia-Books and searched for various problems in them, such as books having duplicate articles or containing redirects. WikiProject Wikipedia-Books is in the process of cleaning them up, but help would be appreciated. For this project, the following books have problems:
The problem reports explain in details what exactly are the problems, why they are problems, and how to fix them. This way anyone can fix them even if they aren't familiar with books. If you don't see something that looks like this, then all problems have been fixed. (Please strike articles from this list as the problems get fixed.)
Also, the {{ saved book}} template has been updated to allow editors to specify the default covers of books (title, subtitle, cover-image, cover-color), and gives are preview of the default cover on the book's page. An example of such a cover is found on the right. Ideally, all books in Category:Book-Class country articles should have covers.
If you need help with cleaning up a book, help with the {{ saved book}} template, or have any questions about books in general, see Help:Books, Wikipedia:Books, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, or ask me on my talk page. Also feel free to join WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as we need all the help we can get.
This message was delivered by User:EarwigBot, at 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC), on behalf of Headbomb. Headbomb probably isn't watching this page, so if you want him to reply here, just leave him a message on his talk page. EarwigBot ( owner • talk) 00:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently encountering a problem on whether "Turkmen" or "Turkmenistani" should be used to describe Turkmenistan people. I do think that "Turkmen" is the correct term per Category:Turkmen people but since many huge categories uses "Turkmenistani" e.g. Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople, Category:Turkmenistani sportspeople stubs and Category:Turkmenistani footballers, I think I shall start a discussion here to reach consensus.
Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a Turkmen. I've never heard of -stani usage in Turkmenistan. Turkmen is accepted officially. All the matter here is Pakistani usage which I think because of the fact that there are many ethnicities in Pakistan instead of a majority. Pak was not acceptable as the adjective form of nationality. Then Pakistani was coined. Mainly the majority's name determines the countries demonym. Ex. French, German, etc. How do you like Russian presidential election, 2008? According to -stani logic, Russian is not proper here. Russia is a multi-ethnical country. Of course I don't agree with that. The word Russian here indicates the whole country, like Turkmen does. As I said before, Pakistan is the only exception, and for their sake the other -stan countries cannot be deprived of their ethnical (factually national) demonym. The reason behind is that Pakistan is 40 years older than other -stan countries, it is known to English-speaking world 40 years earlier than the new -stan republics. All five -stan countries call themselves with their stani-less names. Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik, Kyrgyz, Kazakh all encompass all the citizens regardless of their ethnicity, like French, German, Dutch etc. We can make them ridiculous like Frenchi, Germani, Dutchi, Italiani which is totally inacceptle for the -stan adjectives as well. Pakistan is welcome. It is an exception. -- Hanberke ( talk) 15:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
The CIA WFB disagrees, though: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ti.html#People — Nightstallion 09:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I request neutral input for the survey, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Western_New_Guinea#Requested_move
I also bring to your attention the political interest in the article itself, notably the claiming of the article as part of 'WikiProject Indonesia'. With all due respect, the islands of South East Asia and on the Australian continental shelf are geographic regions whereas the Republic of Indonesia is a political state. There are already separate articles on the political and geographic subjects as partially listed at West Papua. I don't want to waste time with an edit war with writers who feel acknowledgement of the geographic region of West Papua is an insult to the republic; but, I think a claim that the article is part of 'WikiProject Melanesia' would be more appropriate given the scope of the article. Daeron ( talk) 02:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The above article has been fully protected for a month, to allow the dispute to be resolved, and a consensus reached.
Any comments from knowledgeable people from this WikiProject would be appreciated. -- PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 15:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the "Area", "Establishment" and "Population" headings are now centered in all the Infobox country iboxes. There was nothing in the edit history, so was this some sort of internal improvement? Is there a standardization program in the works? For example, {{
Infobox settlement}} still has "Area" and "Population"
left-justified. This new centering makes the headers unlike all the other headers in the ibox that are still left-justified, so the centering seems to detract from the ibox. Can we get the centering changed back to left-justified for the "Area", "Population" and "Establishment" headers, please?
— Paine (
Ellsworth's
Climax)
15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, I've recently been involved in a discussion at the Somalia article's talk page regarding the general quality of that article. I disagree with the focus the article has (its sections on energy and telecommunications, for example, seem much too long, while its section on politics seems to ignore "elephants in the room") and with the general tone (it seems to go out of its way to present the country in a positive light). I have tried to explain my concerns to frequent editors on the talk page, but one in particular seems to strongly disagree. I really don't want to battle through contentious edits, could some people here go and take a look at the article and give their two cents on whether I'm in the wrong here or he is? Thanks a lot, TastyCakes ( talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
There is an RFC at the Côte d'Ivoire talk page about whether Wikipedia should be use the name "Côte d'Ivoire" or "Ivory Coast". Those who would like to express their opinion and participate in the discussion should do at that talk page. Orange Tuesday ( talk) 20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion taking place here over how states are listed on List of sovereign states. Any input from members of this project is welcome. TDL ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Bangladesh for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt ( talk) 05:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
A deletion discussion for a page within the scope of your project, List of largest empires, has been created. You are welcome to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest empires (5th nomination). Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Russia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Philipmj24 ( talk) 03:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've drafted this comparison of all the countries I know are featured articles, mostly gained from the outdated map on this wikiproject. Besides showing easy options for fixes, it also raises a couple of questions about the template we have here. The major thing I see is that many of these articles have a separate Foreign relations and military section, and some have a separate International rankings section. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Countries articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I opened a FLC and I think it falls within the scope of the projects as counties represent the first level subdivisions in Romania. Any comments would be appreciated. Nergaal ( talk) 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
What is the policy on subsidiary country articles on a topic not itself notable enough to make the main country page? For example, International rankings of Algeria, Archeology of Algeria. I was about to go through every country and add the "international rankings" link to the see also section, per a request on my talk page, but it seems that the prevailing convention and also the WP:SEEALSO guideline do not encourage this, so I'm now wondering whether to proceed. Any opinions? — Amakuru ( talk) 08:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi guys,
For your information, I have just nominated Rwanda (which I have been working on a lot recently) for peer review.
The peer review page is: Wikipedia:Peer review/Rwanda/archive2
I would very much appreciate any input into that, as part of my overall goal of elevating the article to WP:FA status.
Thanks! — Amakuru ( talk) 21:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as the banner of this project is on the article talk page. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 22:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion at Template:Countries of Europe is an example of this continuing argument. We've got to decide if E/S/W/NI belong in such articles, or if the UK is suficent. GoodDay ( talk) 16:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a request move on the template here. Template_talk:Countries_of_Europe#Requested_move BritishWatcher ( talk) 11:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the inclusion of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may also be an issue on these templates.
{{
Capitals in Europe}}
, {{
List of European capitals by region}}
, {{
Languages of Europe}}
2 of these state Sovereign States yet still include England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in small text and brackets after the UK. The other says European states and territories, but someone has added to the second row about non-sovereign territories or constituent nations appearing in small capitals. Do England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need removing from these templates? the response here and over on the countries of Europe template seems to be against their inclusion, and thats with the title country.. here its actually saying sovereign state / state, but including them. BritishWatcher ( talk) 21:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Europe topic}}
template. What are England etc. doing in the sovereign states section anyway? They should exist only in the last row, the dependencies and others, if anywhere at all (No, the word country does not appear on the Europe Topic template). The third row has its own issues anyway.
Chipmunkdavis (
talk)
14:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Comment Because of the nature of the 1707 Act of Union, the UK Parliament is not sovereign in Scotland. We even have a WP section about this Parliamentary_sovereignty#Scotland. Essentially in Scotland, Scottish law is sovereign and that law can challenge any act of Parliament laid down by the UK government. The Act of union with Ireland similarly allowed Irish law to challenge Parliament decisions and this is retained in Northern Ireland as do the legislative bodies in the crown protectorates (the channel islands and Isle of Man). This is why questions of sovereignty do not apply to the UK, the UK Parliament cannot make any sovereign decision on behalf of the nations of Scotland or Northern Ireland or crown protectorates that cannot be challenged and over-ruled within those countries. Scotland also has border inviolability which was why in 1999 the UK government had to get the agreement of the Scottish Office (then run by the same party as the UK government) to make the legislative changes to move the Scotland/England Border in favour of England. Scotland also retains an independent army of 100 men under the command of the Duke of Atholl (who may serve some of their time in the British Army but do so separately from their commitments to the Atholl Highlanders), separate religion, are recognised a separate by many of the world's sporting bodies,they have the ability to independently print banknotes and further powers by which sovereignty can be measured. The devolution of 1998 did not give Scotland or Northern Ireland any "Devolved Powers" it simply allowed the powers they already had to be managed by a a selection of elected officials rather than the solitary figure of the Lord Advocate - it did also allow the ability for these officials to make decisions on distribution of taxation; something that had previously been done under the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. The arrangement of Scotland and Ireland within the union is no different to the arrangement of Germany or France within the European Union, they retain much of their sovereignty but chose to pool some of that power with other nations for mutual benefit. This is why it is not just a nationalist view that these countries are treated separately because they, like Monaco or Lichtenstein have far more sovereignty than a state within a federal system.
Wales on the other hand is a far more complex issue, it's laws were swept away in it's union along with much of it's sovereignty - even today laws passed at the Welsh assembly have to be scrutinised by Westminster. There may be scope within the act of union that allow it also to overturn acts of parliament but I am not well enough versed in the wording or nature of the act to confirm if this is the case. Either way, WP should not be taking a position that the UK government is sovereign it should be respecting the sources that may identify an individual country as relevant or may identify the whole union as relevant. Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 14:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Are we all in general agreement, that these articles/templates/lists etc, need to be RM'd from country & capital to sovereign state & sovereign capital? Should this be taken to a Wikipedia-wide forum? GoodDay ( talk) 15:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Capitals in Europe}}
and {{
Languages of Europe}}
BritishWatcher (
talk)
18:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Should we subheading the different debates? It seems that the Countries in Europe template will be moved. Discussion of the others is ongoing, so it can either be continued here or at their respective talk pages. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 11:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
We could instead create a new section for primary politicial divisions, but set the default logic to #ifexist
, meaning the section and its links wouldn't appear except where specific articles exist. This would allow readers to find specific articles where and when they exist, and would be beneficial in those cases where the articles at a national level are missing. Templates are for navigation, which means if there's an article for a topic, readers should be able to find the link.
Nightw
13:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
TLDR, sorry. Back to divide. Ironically, the full sentence referenced was "The UK is divided into four countries, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.". Please explain why it is quite acceptable to use a reliable source to show use of the word 'divide'. Yet that same source, even though it is part of the same sentence, is apparently unacceptble to verify inclusion of the UK countries in articles and templates of countries.
There is no need to choose what is or isn't a country (which is inherently POV) if reliable sources are used to determine which entry should be included. What qualifies you, or any other editor, to define its meaning? Please explain why you think
Neutral point of view, a supposedly non-negotiable, core policy should be ignored.
Daicaregos (
talk)
11:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I had no intention of posting on this page as I think there are people here who will not be persuaded by any argument. I am though going to cut and paste a post I made to Dai's talk page and will leave it there without any further comment. I don't expect it to change anyones mind, but hope they will understand why some of us find it strange that a list of countries should not include all those verifiably called countries.
"The fact is, there are millions of people throughout the world who know that Scotland, Wales and England are countries. I would think that they would be rather puzzled that they are not included in an article titled 'List of countries', not to mention those who don't know and may now never find out. To rename an article (or a template) for the express purpose of excluding them does a disservice to the reader. Alas, there are enough people on here that don't see it that way and will ensure that no list will include them. They are countries and yet there will be no list on wikipedia that will inform the reader of that. It's a sad state of affairs, but after being around here for a while it doesn't surprise me."
Jack 1958 ( talk) 11:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We do agree (I assume) that 'country' can mean more then one thing. Like Minister for example. GoodDay ( talk) 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The above section was getting extremely lengthy, please continue discussion here. Outback the koala ( talk) 05:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Articles (including lists and templates) should do exactly what they say on the tin. If it is called 'list of countries …', any territory that reliable sources verify as a country should be included on that article. 'Sovereign state' and 'country' are not synonymous. It is not up to us as editors to define a 'country'. It is our job to reflect what reliable sources say are countries. That way, editor POV is removed. If reliable sources say a territory is a country, but it is not included on the article because editors want the article to mean something else (sovereign state perhaps), the name of the article should be changed to reflect its content. It may be simplistic, but this is my understanding of Neutral point of view; a fundamental principle of Wikipedia, which says: NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." Millions of people in the UK (and elsewhere) consider England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to be countries, despite being perfectly aware that they are not sovereign; a valid a viewpoint that should be reflected on Wikipedia. Daicaregos ( talk) 07:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I oppose adding non sovereign countries to templates, it still leaves open the debate about what else is allowed to be included as has been gone over many times in the past. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need to be removed from templates where they appear in the sovereign state section. BritishWatcher ( talk) 17:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Capitals in Europe}}
{{
Languages of Europe}}
is where they appear in the sovereign state section. If new rows should be added to accommodate things like non sovereign countries and states is another matter, but they should be removed from these two.
BritishWatcher (
talk)
17:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose including any non-sovereign entities on these templates and agree with the suggestions (far) above that any template labeled as "country" that is non-geographical in nature, but political should be renamed to "sovereign state" to avoid any confusion. Where ENG, SCOT, WLS, and NI are, they should be removed posthaste. I dont agree with having an exception for the UK, it would only open a floodgate of other requests for inclusion. Outback the koala ( talk) 19:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Flags of stateless nations and Coat of arms of stateless nations have been prodded for deletion. 76.66.200.95 ( talk) 06:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Malaysia for Peer Review in the hope of getting it to GA and maybe FA. The page of the review is Wikipedia:Peer review/Malaysia/archive2, any comments are welcome. Also, if anyone sees something easily copyedited, if they did so that would be appreciated. Thanks, Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 00:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated List of states with limited recognition for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Nightw 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)