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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk: Taiwan about how to describe the Republic of China consistent with how Wikipedia describes other partially recognised states like Kosovo. Participation welcomed. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at Talk:United States#Area in square miles —sorry, in a wall of three sections — whether to use the U.S. Census Bureau “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. Some editors would like to see the figure of “50 states and DC” alone, which is available in a sub-chart.
In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”, for reporting the total U.S. area in the info box.
The results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. Any comments are welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discusion on whether citizenship data of the last census should be included in the article's infobox. It would be great to see as many participants in the discussion as possible. Hansi667 ( talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A request to change the font size for footnotes in this template has been made in Template_talk:Infobox_country#Footnote_text_is_tiny, if any interested editor wants to comment. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 12:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Category:Natural history of the Caribbean by islands has been listed for Categories for Discussion -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu concerning the Ryukyuan national flag. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 00:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see Talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The new article Skovaji needs to be assesed and assigned a rating, as well as put on to your map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoop ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " No man's land"/" No Man's Land" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 04:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Does the disambiguator "(state)" have a special meaning to not mean "state" in general, if used in Chinese history articles? See Talk:Song (state) where we are discussing whether "state" does not mean any state, but only means non-Imperial states -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to signal a problem in the sum of somes areas. For North America (CAN +US), you mention an area of 3,68 millions square km, but later for Canada 3,1 millions km² and for US 3,03 millions or a sum of 6,13 millions km². That don't work. I do not verified others sums but that may be of interest for an encyclopedia to be as precise as possible. (French version have the same problem.) Thank you for your attention. 96.21.110.93 ( talk) 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)CSH Canada
Please see comment regarding Menorca and old name "Minorca" In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Rwanda 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) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed the merger of the articles List of military occupations with List of territorial disputes. You can join the discussion here.
Thanks for your participation. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a few more eyes on the edits at Iran...we have a new editor removing dead links without replacing them or trying to find archive versions. I have mentioned the problems on the talk page but no longer have time to go into more details. -- Moxy ( talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a merge request at Talk:List of countries by student performance#Proposed merge a few weeks ago and haven't received any responses. Wondering if anyone here has any thoughts? Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 09:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing Request for Comments that may be of interest to members of this project. You are welcome to express your opinion about the matter. LjL ( talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
All articles within Wikipedia ought to have, as part of its standard repertoire, a Media Section to accompany its other components. Every nation in its original article that provides an overview of that political unit that we commonly refer to as a country, should also give a brief overview of how broadcast communications are provided in that nation. Only the United Kingdom article, the United States article and the Mexico article possess that section of what I have so far reviewed. Spain and France in Europe, for example, do not possess that information or even have it included as other parts of the main article. Even something about the various national libraries and national museums that many, many nations have ought to be included in the overall national summary article. At this point it is not a part of the Standard Format - which there ought to be - to maintain the consistency required of a legitimate encyclopaedia. I add this here with this project, because I believe that this is where the organization for those endeavors begins. And even the inclusion of certain items ought to standardized so each of the editors that do contribute don't have to continually reinvent the wheel everytime they try to drive their mental vehicle forward. Every media section should include public broadcast information such as television and radio, along with private broadcast mechanisms of significance, the major newspapers that distribute information to the populaces of those nations, possibly major telephone systems or vendors, the major satellite systems the country may control or receives dedicated information from, (in the case of France for example, I believe they used to have their own internet until the U.S. built a competing system that has now become a singular global commercial system - unless they just kept it as a military system), but their national libraries and museums should also merit inclusion somewhere within this scheme. Hopefully, someone or a number of people will agree that this suggestion merits importance in providing a balanced overview of the presentation of nations and ought to be integrated into the skeleton of the outlines that are used as a foundation to build those articles... Thanks and regards... Steve Stevenmitchell ( talk) 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated. XavierGreen ( talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In the infoboxes, is the percent water for internal water, or does it include territorial seas? Example: Poland has 311888 km^2 of land (including internal waters), 2005 km^2 of internal waters, and 8682 km^2 of territorial seas ( p. 25). So which of the following is correct:
Please ping me in reply. I think this is something that should be specified on the project page and/or the {{ Infobox country}} documentation. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I note that numerous country articles attempt to variously distinguish "water area" or "% water" as a component of country size. Is there an internationally accepted standard and methodology for doing so, and appropriate secondary sources demonstrating their use and findings? Currently, there is considerable inconsistency in the definition and use of this data category, and as a result editors are using inaccurate, partial, and non-comparable data, in country articles, geographic feature comparison lists, and country comparison articles. If there is no internationally accepted standard, methodology or sources, then I suggest removing "% water" from the structure and guidelines for facts tables, and removing the category from country articles and revising the various size comparison lists affected. Robert Brukner ( talk) 06:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion (link) about how to treat Hong Kong in a list of GDPs. Such lists typically italicize dependencies and non-sovereign entities as well as not count them in the rankings. The question being raise is whether or not Hong Kong should be treated. Anyone know knows details on this issue or knows of past discussions would be very welcome in the discussion. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Didn't Template:Infobox country used to have a slot for a country's national day or holiday? — Steve Summit ( talk) 17:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, if you can please participate in this discussion on country-related articles. Thank you. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 10:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please participate in discussion at Template talk:Infobox country#Smarter ISO 3166 handling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I have changed Kenya to B-class status because I feel it has met the referencing criterion. However, I am posting here because I have provided the refs myself. If anyone feels I have made a mistake due to a conflict of interest, please re-assess it and let me know. Thanks, MediaKill13 ( talk) 11:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
List of countries and dependencies by population is an article that is relevant to this project. After having it drop off my watchlist some time ago I returned on 9 August 2016 to find that the population table is constantly being edited without any indication of sourcing, or edit summaries, usually by IPs or newly registered editors. The complete lack of sourcing for new edits means that the data in this article is dubious at best. One particular problem that I found is that data templates, which are used to automatically calculate today's population based on official sources, have been removed and replaced with unsourced manual calculations. Several times now I have had to restore these templates after yet another unsourced, unexplained change. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I have now tagged the article to identify issues, and requested semi-protection, but the input by responsible editors who can update the article with accurate, sourced data is needed. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on the title for Cape Verde/Cabo Verde. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:Eritrea#Location has turned circular and unresolveable, with about half a dozen parties sticking to their positions immovably no matter what is offered. I would suggest that an influx of fresh eyes on the matter would be of great benefit before it gets any more WP:LAME. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I am amazed to find that there is a noteworthy sovereign state for which we essentially have no article at all. Denmark (officially the Kingdom of Denmark, but I would argue that WP:Commonname would suggest that Denmark is the appropriate designation) is a sovereign state consisting of three constituent countries: European Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. We have an article Denmark, the target of a redirect from Kingdom of Denmark, that treats only of the European territory, and where editors have refused to accept a lede that deals with the Kingdom as a whole (although its infobox treats of all three constituent countries, as though it belonged to an article that deals properly with the state). We also have adequate articles on Greenland and the Faroes as constituent countries, and one on the constitutional arrangement, but no real article on the sovereign state per se, so everything that should link to such an article is directed instead to the European territory.
This is (loosely, I appreciate that the degree of autonomy is beyond UK devolution) analogous to having articles on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and on the Act of Union, but not having an article on the United Kingdom except a redirect pointing to England, and every UK relevant link pointing to England.
The issue is dealt with far better in the cases of Netherlands and France: it is a gross failure in the case of Denmark that there is a significant sovereign state that has no article. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Singapore#RfC - Inclusion of sentence about Gallup poll for a current RFC about the lead of Singapore. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Countries/Archive 12 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:North_Korea#Should_we_use_juche_in_the_infobox.3F about mentioning ideology in he infobox. Could do with some input. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Background: pinging @ Wrestlingring: and @ Canterbury Tail: for this. I had hesitated to revert myself. I notice similar reverts have been done on the United States page; I have not investigated deeply other country pages, nor found anything in the archives on that subject.
The question is whether the website in the infobox country template should be used to place the country's government website acceptable for this. On the one hand, I do not see how to fill this field if not by the government's website, and the mere existence of the field in the template suggests it is to be used. On the other hand, I am quite uncomfortable with its use, and maybe the field was just carried over from another template out of habit (the template documentation gives no description).
If it were up to me, I would ask to change the template to display "governmental website" or similar rather than simply "website". Any thoughts? Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I had put this already on the Talk page under template back in 2015 but had only few responses (see here); so I am also putting it here now in an effort to increase interest for this suggestion: I would like to suggest to have in the template a section heading called "infrastructure". Here we could put information and a link to transportation (which currently appears in the template under "See also"??) but also information and links to water supply and sanitation. Here we could suggest to people (I mean other editors) that they could draw on the information provided for many countries by this project which has created standardised pages for water supply and sanitation in many countries (or see the list here). However, that information should be double checked and only be seen as a starting point as it might in some cases be outdated. It is a good starting point though, and anyone who knows that country or the water sector in that country could probably quite easily add some useful content based on that. See also [ here] on the talk page of User:Moxy . Another option could be to place a sub-heading unter the existing title of "Economy", but I am not sure if that would be better? - What do other people think, is "infrastructure" sufficiently important to show up somehow at the table of contents level? I think it would be as it affects many other aspects of the country. EvMsmile ( talk) 23:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC) EvMsmile ( talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I opened a thread at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population so those with the most knowledge on the subject could weigh in. The thing is the title says "List of countries" which Taiwan is, and an editor has tried to move it to "List of Sovereign States" which Taiwan is not. I guess it and other countries could be removed. Either way it should be looked at and discussed before another move attempt is made. All I care about is correctness for our readers and that those with more knowledge on the subject than I have taken a look-see before it's moved. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a relevant RFC at Talk:Germany#RFC:_Adding_Nazi_Germany_to_Infobox about including Nazi Germany in the infobox. This could do with some input. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Note, added Feb. 9... User talk:Iaof2017 this is the User who reverted much of the content I had added.
His Talk page includes this note:
An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. User talk:Iaof2017
Peter K Burian ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The article sounds like it was written by a PR agency for the country and much of it is not recent, with old information and 2010 to 2014 sources. I added a new section today with less pleasant information, fully cited with recent sources. See below in case someone has already reverted it.
Note: The Talk page sounds like the users are not keen on any changes; I would not be surprised if they reverted my added content. (I also edited the sentence about the European Union in the lede and inserted a 2017 citation to replace the one they had from years ago.)
The new section I added today:
Application to the European Union
Although Albania had received candidate status for EU membership in 2014 (based on their 2009 application) the EU has twice rejected full membership. {cite web |url= http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17679574 |title=Albania country profile |author= |date=December 15, 2016 |website=BBC News |publisher=BBC |access-date=February 8, 2017 |quote=The [2013] election was closely monitored by the EU, which has twice rejected Albania's membership application and warned that the poll would be "a crucial test" for its further progress towards integration in the bloc.}} The European Parliament warned government leaders in early 2017 that the parliamentary elections in June must be "free and fair" before negotiations could begin to admit the country into the Union. The MEPs also expressed concern about the country's "selective justice, corruption, the overall length of judicial proceedings and political interference in investigations and court cases" but the EU Press Release expressed some optimism: "It is important for Albania to maintain today's reform momentum and we must be ready to support it as much as possible in this process". "Foreign affairs MEPs assess reform efforts in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina". European Parliament. European Parliament. January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2017.
Albania needs to implement EU-related reforms credibly, and ensure that its June parliamentary elections are free and fair, if it is to start EU accession negotiations{cite web |url=Albania and Bosnia fail to impress at EU membership meeting over democratic value concerns |title=Albania and Bosnia fail to impress at EU membership meeting over democratic value concerns |last=Culbertson |first=Alix |date=February 1, 2017 |website=Express |publisher=Express Newspapers Ltd., UK |access-date=February 8, 2017 |quote=Albania and Bosnia have stumbled at the first hurdle of becoming fully-fledged European Union (EU) members after MEPs questioned the credibility of their democratic values.}}
Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I added some new content to the Albania article as per the above note.
As expected, nearly all of that was deleted by a frequent User of that article. Only the content that puts Albania in a glowing light was retained. There are real problems with neutrality. WP:NPOV Peter K Burian ( talk) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
His Talk page includes this note:
An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. User talk:Iaof2017
Peter K Burian ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There have been debates in the Talk section about what should be included in the infobox section Formation, for Germany. Currently, one item is about the European Economic Community era (a preliminary attempt at some free trade), but no item re: the later European Union era.
And three important items are omitted, particularly the Third Reich.
1. Third Reich: Nazi Germany the period in German history from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was governed by a dictatorship under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP).
2. The division: 1949 when two states emerged: History of Germany (1945–90) Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), commonly known as West Germany, . ... German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly known as East Germany...]
3. German reunification .. of East Germany and West Germany. At least some of us working on the article believe that a) Third Reich should be added or b) the Formation section should be deleted if it cannot accurately depict the important formative aspects of the country.
Perhaps getting a few experienced editors involved - without any "attachment" to the Germany article - would help resolve this matter. Peter K Burian ( talk) 21:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A user, Hddty., has been mass-changing infoboxes of country articles to their preferred format (i.e. not specifying language names in infoboxes, changing infobox footnotes to general ones), without consulting this project. Since those changes range from benign to bad for accessibility (i.e. not specifying language names), I've mass-reverted most of them. Hope this is OK. They stopped after I let them know about the problematic nature of their edits on their talk page. Graham 87 12:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Countries.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Countries, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll start off by saying that I'm not an active contributor to this project, but I'd like to make a recommendation on the opening sentences in country articles. Currently, I believe the opening sentences of these articles are too busy with with pronunciation and official name jargon that it hurts readability. (See MOS:LEADALT) For example:
99% of readers don't care about the pronunciation and official name details. They scan past all of that that until they see "...is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula..." so they can keep reading. I'm sure most of you do it too. I am recommending that this WikiProject adopt a footnote policy for information like this in the lead. For example:
or
I think this drastically improves readability and invites the reader in nicely into the lead, instead of asking them to strain their eyes just to read the first sentence. This policy was adopted over on the Video Games project for Japanese titles with success ( WP:JFN). Thoughts? TarkusAB 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Notes
References
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This stems from the current disagreement about the inclusion of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) among bordering countries in Iran's lead. It raises the question of including also other self-proclaimed countries not recognized by any UN member (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Republic of Somaliland, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and, in future, potentially others) among bordering countries in other articles on countries (which AFAIK is not directly covered by any relevant policy or guideline, such as WP:LEAD or WikiProject Countries#Lead section).
Should the articles about countries mention self-proclaimed entities not recognized by any UN member among bordering countries? Brandmeister talk 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Countries
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. Wikipedia has many tables of things that have a column labelled "Country": ones I edit range from List of battles and other violent events by death toll to List of Yes concert tours (2000s–10s). What I see is a lot of editing back and forth over whether the country listed should be the United Kingdom, or should be England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. List of Yes concert tours (2000s–10s) long used to say England, Scotland etc., although it now says UK. List of battles and other violent events by death toll has long said UK, but -- and I my prompt to come here today -- there's currently an edit dispute there (e.g., this). Personally, I feel for consistency we should say UK because we don't split the US into States, the UAE into Emirates or the Soviet Union into Republics. But, knowing Wikipedia, there are probably editors who feel deeply that we should do each of those. But I haven't gone against any longstanding status quos.
Is there any actual guideline or advice here? I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries, which supports UK over England/Scotland, but is answering a different question, and wasn't entirely conclusive. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus on how much "history should be included in the lead section of a modern country's article should depend on the country.
How much "history" should be included in the Lead Section of a modern country's article? How much is too much and how much is too little? For example, Finland's history represents about half the lead, Canada's represents about a third, Switzerland's is less than a quarter, whereas Federated States of Micronesia has almost none at all.
A subquestion, for anyone really interested, is what is the appropriate balance between pre-modern and modern history in the lead.
Any consensus from this discussion will be added to the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on the Abkhazia article about whether to include the infobox featuring the Republic of Abkhazia (its flag, symbols, etc.) The Republic of Abkhazia is a partially-recognized country. Other partially-recognized country articles (such as South Ossetia and Transnistria) have infoboxes representing the partially-recognized state. With Abkhazia, there is no infobox. Whenever someone tries to put the infobox back on the Abkhazia article, it gets reverted. Currently, that infobox is not on any English-language Wikipedia article, though it is on nearly every Abkhazia article in other languages. It doesn't make sense that the Abkhazia article doesn't have an infobox while other partially-recognized countries do. LumaP15 ( talk) 03:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the project's thoughts on the above article. It's the top hit for the subject on Google, so obviously it's important that it's reliable. To me, it reads like an advocacy page, rather than a Neutral article. It's almost completely unsourced, and of those few (3) that it has, the first is a blog, the second is a broken link (but wasn't independent anyway), and the third, the only vaguely good one, is over 10 years old. There's a 2011 debate about the lack of neutrality on the Talkpage, but it didn't get very far, ending with the (self-appointed?) Consul General declaring the editor's efforts to be "treasonable"! To me, it just doesn't look right, but I'd be interested in others' thoughts. KJP1 ( talk) 10:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC about the transliterated and Russian names of Belarus' in the page's opening paragraph. Your input would be appreciated. It can be found here. – Sabbatino ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Are timelines acceptable in main pages of countries' or country groups' as can be seen at Nordic countries#Timeline? This has also been added to Baltic states page, but I have removed it. If I remember correctly these were removed at some point from every pages regarding cities, countries or country groups, but I cannot seem to find the discussion about it. Any help would be appreciated. – Sabbatino ( talk) 17:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to discuss the newly created {{ Infobox folk song}} and its future here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtam90 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There is RfC in the Jordan article about the etymology section. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements to the List of ISO 3166 country codes. Thanks, Buaidh talk contribs 15:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Category:Swaziland, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Eswatini. The nomination includes proposals to similarly rename 434 sub-categories of Category:Swaziland. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Could I ask for some comments on the inclusion of slavery stats at Talk:Dominican Republic#Slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia on including a brief summary of the main economic aspects of the Saudi Vision 2030 program. I've suggested some options for this, which editors here are invited to give feedback on. Thanks. Tarafa15 ( talk) 15:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Republic of Macedonia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming, along with hundreds of its subcategories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Should
demonym links in all country infoboxes be changed from linking to the article on that word to linking to demographics for the country? For example change demonym = [[Danes|Danish]]|Dane
to demonym = [[Demographics of Denmark|Danish]]|[[Demographics of Denmark|Dane]]
.
21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that APG1984 ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [11], [12], [13], [14])
— Note: Sashko1999 is indefinitely blocked for violating a topic ban. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The Greeks or Hellenes are an ethnic group native to...) seems to imply that citizens of Greece not belonging to the ethnic group are not Greek, while they are. We should try to use wording (and the philosophy that goes with it) such as
Danes are a nation and ethnic group,
The French are an ethnic group and nation who are identified with the country of France,
Canadians are people identified with the country of Canada.Place Clichy ( talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I changed the links of the demonyms because there were putted wrong links, I already explained why, but I will explain again. First, we need to differentiate that demonym and ethnonym are not the same thing, the DEMONYM refers to all citizens of one country, and the ETHNONYM refers to people of a particular ethnic group. There is a explanation here what is demonym. /info/en/?search=Demonym is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place. So, why for example the demonym Danish/Dane is going to the link Danes if the demonym is a word that identifies RESIDENTS OR NATIVES of a particular place?, did that's mean that in Denmark lives just ethnic Danes?, apsolutely no, in Denmark lives many other ethnic groups and they are also Danes by citizenship or by birth place. Because the link for the demonym Danish/Danes should go to the link demographics of Denmark because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Denmark. Sashko1999 ( talk) 13:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Danes as a nation and ethnic group. Read some history and ethnology, find some good scientific sources to support your claims (which I'm sorry, they don't exist) and then you can start talking about demonyms and ethnonyms. Argean ( talk) 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Dane is a word for a peron of Denmark, but also for an ethnic Dane, so, it has double meaning, but when we talk about the demonym Dane, we mean on a person from Denmark, and that person can be of any ethnicity, because the link can't go to the ethnic Danes, with that we discriminate all people who are from Denmark, and are not ethnic Danes. Sashko1999 ( talk) 14:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We need to explain that the demonym Dane refers to all persons from Denmark, and not just to the ethnic Danes, but how we will explain that if we linking the demonym Dane to the ethnic group Danes, it's really apsurd and as I said with that we discriminate all people who are from Denmark, and are not ethnic Danes. Here is one example of discrimination. /info/en/?search=%C5%9Eaban_%C3%96zdo%C4%9Fan Şaban Özdoğan (born 14 March 1990) is a Danish footballer of Turkish descent who currently plays for Holbæk B&I in the Danish 2nd Division East. He previously played for Danish Superliga club F.C. Copenhagen. This football player is from Denmark, so, he's Danish by nationality and he should be included in the demonym Danish/Dane, but how will be if the link for the demonym goes to the ethnic Danes?
The problem is just with the demonyms of the countries where there is a dominant ethnic groups, but there is no need to change this in other places, for example in some place when we talk about some ethnic Dane, of course the link will going to the Danes. Here is one example for that. There are no official statistics on ethnic groups, but according to 2018 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86.7% of the population was of Danish descent (the link here goes to the ethnic Danes, defined as having at least one parent who was born in Denmark and has Danish citizenship. Sashko1999 ( talk) 15:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, the link Danes is just for the ethnic group Danes, and not for all citizens of Denmark such as the links Canadians, Americans, Argentines etc., but the demonym doesn't refers just to the ethnic Danes, because the link can't go to the Danes, but to the demographics of Denmark because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Denmark. Sashko1999 ( talk) 15:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha, /info/en/?search=%C5%9Eaban_%C3%96zdo%C4%9Fan Şaban Özdoğan is a 100% ethnic Turk from Denmark, is he Dane by nationality or no? Sashko1999 ( talk) 15:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, Danish/Dane is and national and ethnic term, so, it has a double meaning, I already said that, but the demonym refers from where is some person, and not of which ethnicity is he/she, because the link can't go to the ethnic group Danes. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Here clearly writes: This article is about Danes as a nation and ethnic group. Also writes: For information about residents or nationals of Denmark, see Demographics of Denmark, and the demonym is about the residents or nationals of Denmark, not about the ethnic group Danes. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, yes, that makes you British by nationality because you are a British national and you live in UK, so, If someone ask you from where are you, you will say from UK, and exactly that's the demonym, it describes from where is some person, and not of which ethnicity is he/she. Just to say that the British people are not an ethnic group, but that's the demonym for all the citizens of UK. /info/en/?search=British_people The British people, or the Britons, are the CITIZENS of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, because you said that you are a permenent resident of the UK, I thought that you live longer time there and that you have a British passport, if you don't have, then of course that you are not British by nationality. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
But the demonym refers to the residents or nationals of one country, not to one ethnic group of that country, and for example in Greece the residents ot nationals are not just the ethnic Greeks, because the link can't go the the Greeks, i don't know how do you don't understand. Sashko1999 ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, you will not change your nationality, haha, tell me, do you know what's nationality? Sashko1999 ( talk) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, you said a Greek can have various ethnic backgrounds, but most of them are also ethnically Greeks, that's completely true. Also, you said the demonym in the case of countries obviously refers to the people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country), that's also completely true. So, tell me now, how is it possible the link for the demonym Greek to go to the ethnic Greeks if not all people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country) are ethnic Greeks? Sashko1999 ( talk) 17:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
—DIYeditor, the article is good, Danes today are an ethnic group, so, the link for the demonym should be fixed.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Denmark/People Denmark is almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Danes.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-living-in-denmark.html 9 out of 10 residents of Denmark identify as ethnic Danes... Sashko1999 ( talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close this RFC, Sashko1999 is indefed and this is a waste of time. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Azerbaijan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Azerbaijan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 10:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Template_talk:Infobox_country#Metro_area_parameter. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mongolia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mongolia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 04:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kiribati is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kiribati until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 05:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Zimbabwe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zimbabwe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 07:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPC. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, Please help in improving the Bangladesh country article, although the article is significantly developed, but not as compared to articles like India, Canada, Australia, Germany or Japan these are all FA status articles. Its my humble appeal to you please help nominate Bangladesh article as Good or Featured article. Thank You-- 2405:201:8803:5F9D:E994:F724:9292:CF71 ( talk) 06:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Armenia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Gabon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gabon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:06, 21 August 2019 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion at Talk: Taiwan about how to describe the Republic of China consistent with how Wikipedia describes other partially recognised states like Kosovo. Participation welcomed. Frenchmalawi ( talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
There has been a discussion at Talk:United States#Area in square miles —sorry, in a wall of three sections — whether to use the U.S. Census Bureau “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. Some editors would like to see the figure of “50 states and DC” alone, which is available in a sub-chart.
In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”, for reporting the total U.S. area in the info box.
The results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. Any comments are welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discusion on whether citizenship data of the last census should be included in the article's infobox. It would be great to see as many participants in the discussion as possible. Hansi667 ( talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
A request to change the font size for footnotes in this template has been made in Template_talk:Infobox_country#Footnote_text_is_tiny, if any interested editor wants to comment. GermanJoe ( talk) 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 12:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Category:Natural history of the Caribbean by islands has been listed for Categories for Discussion -- 70.51.200.101 ( talk) 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu concerning the Ryukyuan national flag. ミーラー強斗武 ( StG88ぬ会話) 00:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see Talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 ( talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!
Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!
If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.
Thanks, and happy editing!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The new article Skovaji needs to be assesed and assigned a rating, as well as put on to your map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoop ( talk • contribs) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of " No man's land"/" No Man's Land" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 04:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Does the disambiguator "(state)" have a special meaning to not mean "state" in general, if used in Chinese history articles? See Talk:Song (state) where we are discussing whether "state" does not mean any state, but only means non-Imperial states -- 70.51.202.183 ( talk) 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 ( talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I want to signal a problem in the sum of somes areas. For North America (CAN +US), you mention an area of 3,68 millions square km, but later for Canada 3,1 millions km² and for US 3,03 millions or a sum of 6,13 millions km². That don't work. I do not verified others sums but that may be of interest for an encyclopedia to be as precise as possible. (French version have the same problem.) Thank you for your attention. 96.21.110.93 ( talk) 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)CSH Canada
Please see comment regarding Menorca and old name "Minorca" In ictu oculi ( talk) 12:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Rwanda 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) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I have proposed the merger of the articles List of military occupations with List of territorial disputes. You can join the discussion here.
Thanks for your participation. -- Ravpapa ( talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Can we get a few more eyes on the edits at Iran...we have a new editor removing dead links without replacing them or trying to find archive versions. I have mentioned the problems on the talk page but no longer have time to go into more details. -- Moxy ( talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I posted a merge request at Talk:List of countries by student performance#Proposed merge a few weeks ago and haven't received any responses. Wondering if anyone here has any thoughts? Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 09:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing Request for Comments that may be of interest to members of this project. You are welcome to express your opinion about the matter. LjL ( talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol ( talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
All articles within Wikipedia ought to have, as part of its standard repertoire, a Media Section to accompany its other components. Every nation in its original article that provides an overview of that political unit that we commonly refer to as a country, should also give a brief overview of how broadcast communications are provided in that nation. Only the United Kingdom article, the United States article and the Mexico article possess that section of what I have so far reviewed. Spain and France in Europe, for example, do not possess that information or even have it included as other parts of the main article. Even something about the various national libraries and national museums that many, many nations have ought to be included in the overall national summary article. At this point it is not a part of the Standard Format - which there ought to be - to maintain the consistency required of a legitimate encyclopaedia. I add this here with this project, because I believe that this is where the organization for those endeavors begins. And even the inclusion of certain items ought to standardized so each of the editors that do contribute don't have to continually reinvent the wheel everytime they try to drive their mental vehicle forward. Every media section should include public broadcast information such as television and radio, along with private broadcast mechanisms of significance, the major newspapers that distribute information to the populaces of those nations, possibly major telephone systems or vendors, the major satellite systems the country may control or receives dedicated information from, (in the case of France for example, I believe they used to have their own internet until the U.S. built a competing system that has now become a singular global commercial system - unless they just kept it as a military system), but their national libraries and museums should also merit inclusion somewhere within this scheme. Hopefully, someone or a number of people will agree that this suggestion merits importance in providing a balanced overview of the presentation of nations and ought to be integrated into the skeleton of the outlines that are used as a foundation to build those articles... Thanks and regards... Steve Stevenmitchell ( talk) 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated. XavierGreen ( talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
In the infoboxes, is the percent water for internal water, or does it include territorial seas? Example: Poland has 311888 km^2 of land (including internal waters), 2005 km^2 of internal waters, and 8682 km^2 of territorial seas ( p. 25). So which of the following is correct:
Please ping me in reply. I think this is something that should be specified on the project page and/or the {{ Infobox country}} documentation. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
I note that numerous country articles attempt to variously distinguish "water area" or "% water" as a component of country size. Is there an internationally accepted standard and methodology for doing so, and appropriate secondary sources demonstrating their use and findings? Currently, there is considerable inconsistency in the definition and use of this data category, and as a result editors are using inaccurate, partial, and non-comparable data, in country articles, geographic feature comparison lists, and country comparison articles. If there is no internationally accepted standard, methodology or sources, then I suggest removing "% water" from the structure and guidelines for facts tables, and removing the category from country articles and revising the various size comparison lists affected. Robert Brukner ( talk) 06:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion (link) about how to treat Hong Kong in a list of GDPs. Such lists typically italicize dependencies and non-sovereign entities as well as not count them in the rankings. The question being raise is whether or not Hong Kong should be treated. Anyone know knows details on this issue or knows of past discussions would be very welcome in the discussion. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 05:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Didn't Template:Infobox country used to have a slot for a country's national day or holiday? — Steve Summit ( talk) 17:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello, if you can please participate in this discussion on country-related articles. Thank you. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) ( talk) 10:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Please participate in discussion at Template talk:Infobox country#Smarter ISO 3166 handling. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 03:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I have changed Kenya to B-class status because I feel it has met the referencing criterion. However, I am posting here because I have provided the refs myself. If anyone feels I have made a mistake due to a conflict of interest, please re-assess it and let me know. Thanks, MediaKill13 ( talk) 11:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
List of countries and dependencies by population is an article that is relevant to this project. After having it drop off my watchlist some time ago I returned on 9 August 2016 to find that the population table is constantly being edited without any indication of sourcing, or edit summaries, usually by IPs or newly registered editors. The complete lack of sourcing for new edits means that the data in this article is dubious at best. One particular problem that I found is that data templates, which are used to automatically calculate today's population based on official sources, have been removed and replaced with unsourced manual calculations. Several times now I have had to restore these templates after yet another unsourced, unexplained change. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] I have now tagged the article to identify issues, and requested semi-protection, but the input by responsible editors who can update the article with accurate, sourced data is needed. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 04:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on the title for Cape Verde/Cabo Verde. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 17:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The RfC at Talk:Eritrea#Location has turned circular and unresolveable, with about half a dozen parties sticking to their positions immovably no matter what is offered. I would suggest that an influx of fresh eyes on the matter would be of great benefit before it gets any more WP:LAME. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 01:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I am amazed to find that there is a noteworthy sovereign state for which we essentially have no article at all. Denmark (officially the Kingdom of Denmark, but I would argue that WP:Commonname would suggest that Denmark is the appropriate designation) is a sovereign state consisting of three constituent countries: European Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. We have an article Denmark, the target of a redirect from Kingdom of Denmark, that treats only of the European territory, and where editors have refused to accept a lede that deals with the Kingdom as a whole (although its infobox treats of all three constituent countries, as though it belonged to an article that deals properly with the state). We also have adequate articles on Greenland and the Faroes as constituent countries, and one on the constitutional arrangement, but no real article on the sovereign state per se, so everything that should link to such an article is directed instead to the European territory.
This is (loosely, I appreciate that the degree of autonomy is beyond UK devolution) analogous to having articles on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and on the Act of Union, but not having an article on the United Kingdom except a redirect pointing to England, and every UK relevant link pointing to England.
The issue is dealt with far better in the cases of Netherlands and France: it is a gross failure in the case of Denmark that there is a significant sovereign state that has no article. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Singapore#RfC - Inclusion of sentence about Gallup poll for a current RFC about the lead of Singapore. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Countries/Archive 12 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
There is an RFC at Talk:North_Korea#Should_we_use_juche_in_the_infobox.3F about mentioning ideology in he infobox. Could do with some input. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Background: pinging @ Wrestlingring: and @ Canterbury Tail: for this. I had hesitated to revert myself. I notice similar reverts have been done on the United States page; I have not investigated deeply other country pages, nor found anything in the archives on that subject.
The question is whether the website in the infobox country template should be used to place the country's government website acceptable for this. On the one hand, I do not see how to fill this field if not by the government's website, and the mere existence of the field in the template suggests it is to be used. On the other hand, I am quite uncomfortable with its use, and maybe the field was just carried over from another template out of habit (the template documentation gives no description).
If it were up to me, I would ask to change the template to display "governmental website" or similar rather than simply "website". Any thoughts? Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I had put this already on the Talk page under template back in 2015 but had only few responses (see here); so I am also putting it here now in an effort to increase interest for this suggestion: I would like to suggest to have in the template a section heading called "infrastructure". Here we could put information and a link to transportation (which currently appears in the template under "See also"??) but also information and links to water supply and sanitation. Here we could suggest to people (I mean other editors) that they could draw on the information provided for many countries by this project which has created standardised pages for water supply and sanitation in many countries (or see the list here). However, that information should be double checked and only be seen as a starting point as it might in some cases be outdated. It is a good starting point though, and anyone who knows that country or the water sector in that country could probably quite easily add some useful content based on that. See also [ here] on the talk page of User:Moxy . Another option could be to place a sub-heading unter the existing title of "Economy", but I am not sure if that would be better? - What do other people think, is "infrastructure" sufficiently important to show up somehow at the table of contents level? I think it would be as it affects many other aspects of the country. EvMsmile ( talk) 23:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC) EvMsmile ( talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I opened a thread at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population so those with the most knowledge on the subject could weigh in. The thing is the title says "List of countries" which Taiwan is, and an editor has tried to move it to "List of Sovereign States" which Taiwan is not. I guess it and other countries could be removed. Either way it should be looked at and discussed before another move attempt is made. All I care about is correctness for our readers and that those with more knowledge on the subject than I have taken a look-see before it's moved. Thanks. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
There is a relevant RFC at Talk:Germany#RFC:_Adding_Nazi_Germany_to_Infobox about including Nazi Germany in the infobox. This could do with some input. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 01:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Note, added Feb. 9... User talk:Iaof2017 this is the User who reverted much of the content I had added.
His Talk page includes this note:
An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. User talk:Iaof2017
Peter K Burian ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
The article sounds like it was written by a PR agency for the country and much of it is not recent, with old information and 2010 to 2014 sources. I added a new section today with less pleasant information, fully cited with recent sources. See below in case someone has already reverted it.
Note: The Talk page sounds like the users are not keen on any changes; I would not be surprised if they reverted my added content. (I also edited the sentence about the European Union in the lede and inserted a 2017 citation to replace the one they had from years ago.)
The new section I added today:
Application to the European Union
Although Albania had received candidate status for EU membership in 2014 (based on their 2009 application) the EU has twice rejected full membership. {cite web |url= http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17679574 |title=Albania country profile |author= |date=December 15, 2016 |website=BBC News |publisher=BBC |access-date=February 8, 2017 |quote=The [2013] election was closely monitored by the EU, which has twice rejected Albania's membership application and warned that the poll would be "a crucial test" for its further progress towards integration in the bloc.}} The European Parliament warned government leaders in early 2017 that the parliamentary elections in June must be "free and fair" before negotiations could begin to admit the country into the Union. The MEPs also expressed concern about the country's "selective justice, corruption, the overall length of judicial proceedings and political interference in investigations and court cases" but the EU Press Release expressed some optimism: "It is important for Albania to maintain today's reform momentum and we must be ready to support it as much as possible in this process". "Foreign affairs MEPs assess reform efforts in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina". European Parliament. European Parliament. January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2017.
Albania needs to implement EU-related reforms credibly, and ensure that its June parliamentary elections are free and fair, if it is to start EU accession negotiations{cite web |url=Albania and Bosnia fail to impress at EU membership meeting over democratic value concerns |title=Albania and Bosnia fail to impress at EU membership meeting over democratic value concerns |last=Culbertson |first=Alix |date=February 1, 2017 |website=Express |publisher=Express Newspapers Ltd., UK |access-date=February 8, 2017 |quote=Albania and Bosnia have stumbled at the first hurdle of becoming fully-fledged European Union (EU) members after MEPs questioned the credibility of their democratic values.}}
Peter K Burian ( talk) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I added some new content to the Albania article as per the above note.
As expected, nearly all of that was deleted by a frequent User of that article. Only the content that puts Albania in a glowing light was retained. There are real problems with neutrality. WP:NPOV Peter K Burian ( talk) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
His Talk page includes this note:
An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. User talk:Iaof2017
Peter K Burian ( talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
There have been debates in the Talk section about what should be included in the infobox section Formation, for Germany. Currently, one item is about the European Economic Community era (a preliminary attempt at some free trade), but no item re: the later European Union era.
And three important items are omitted, particularly the Third Reich.
1. Third Reich: Nazi Germany the period in German history from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was governed by a dictatorship under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP).
2. The division: 1949 when two states emerged: History of Germany (1945–90) Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), commonly known as West Germany, . ... German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly known as East Germany...]
3. German reunification .. of East Germany and West Germany. At least some of us working on the article believe that a) Third Reich should be added or b) the Formation section should be deleted if it cannot accurately depict the important formative aspects of the country.
Perhaps getting a few experienced editors involved - without any "attachment" to the Germany article - would help resolve this matter. Peter K Burian ( talk) 21:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A user, Hddty., has been mass-changing infoboxes of country articles to their preferred format (i.e. not specifying language names in infoboxes, changing infobox footnotes to general ones), without consulting this project. Since those changes range from benign to bad for accessibility (i.e. not specifying language names), I've mass-reverted most of them. Hope this is OK. They stopped after I let them know about the problematic nature of their edits on their talk page. Graham 87 12:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Countries.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Countries, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll start off by saying that I'm not an active contributor to this project, but I'd like to make a recommendation on the opening sentences in country articles. Currently, I believe the opening sentences of these articles are too busy with with pronunciation and official name jargon that it hurts readability. (See MOS:LEADALT) For example:
99% of readers don't care about the pronunciation and official name details. They scan past all of that that until they see "...is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula..." so they can keep reading. I'm sure most of you do it too. I am recommending that this WikiProject adopt a footnote policy for information like this in the lead. For example:
or
I think this drastically improves readability and invites the reader in nicely into the lead, instead of asking them to strain their eyes just to read the first sentence. This policy was adopted over on the Video Games project for Japanese titles with success ( WP:JFN). Thoughts? TarkusAB 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Notes
References
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |editors=
ignored (|editor=
suggested) (
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This stems from the current disagreement about the inclusion of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) among bordering countries in Iran's lead. It raises the question of including also other self-proclaimed countries not recognized by any UN member (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Republic of Somaliland, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and, in future, potentially others) among bordering countries in other articles on countries (which AFAIK is not directly covered by any relevant policy or guideline, such as WP:LEAD or WikiProject Countries#Lead section).
Should the articles about countries mention self-proclaimed entities not recognized by any UN member among bordering countries? Brandmeister talk 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Countries
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. Wikipedia has many tables of things that have a column labelled "Country": ones I edit range from List of battles and other violent events by death toll to List of Yes concert tours (2000s–10s). What I see is a lot of editing back and forth over whether the country listed should be the United Kingdom, or should be England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. List of Yes concert tours (2000s–10s) long used to say England, Scotland etc., although it now says UK. List of battles and other violent events by death toll has long said UK, but -- and I my prompt to come here today -- there's currently an edit dispute there (e.g., this). Personally, I feel for consistency we should say UK because we don't split the US into States, the UAE into Emirates or the Soviet Union into Republics. But, knowing Wikipedia, there are probably editors who feel deeply that we should do each of those. But I haven't gone against any longstanding status quos.
Is there any actual guideline or advice here? I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries, which supports UK over England/Scotland, but is answering a different question, and wasn't entirely conclusive. Bondegezou ( talk) 17:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The consensus on how much "history should be included in the lead section of a modern country's article should depend on the country.
How much "history" should be included in the Lead Section of a modern country's article? How much is too much and how much is too little? For example, Finland's history represents about half the lead, Canada's represents about a third, Switzerland's is less than a quarter, whereas Federated States of Micronesia has almost none at all.
A subquestion, for anyone really interested, is what is the appropriate balance between pre-modern and modern history in the lead.
Any consensus from this discussion will be added to the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section. Onceinawhile ( talk) 09:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute on the Abkhazia article about whether to include the infobox featuring the Republic of Abkhazia (its flag, symbols, etc.) The Republic of Abkhazia is a partially-recognized country. Other partially-recognized country articles (such as South Ossetia and Transnistria) have infoboxes representing the partially-recognized state. With Abkhazia, there is no infobox. Whenever someone tries to put the infobox back on the Abkhazia article, it gets reverted. Currently, that infobox is not on any English-language Wikipedia article, though it is on nearly every Abkhazia article in other languages. It doesn't make sense that the Abkhazia article doesn't have an infobox while other partially-recognized countries do. LumaP15 ( talk) 03:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the project's thoughts on the above article. It's the top hit for the subject on Google, so obviously it's important that it's reliable. To me, it reads like an advocacy page, rather than a Neutral article. It's almost completely unsourced, and of those few (3) that it has, the first is a blog, the second is a broken link (but wasn't independent anyway), and the third, the only vaguely good one, is over 10 years old. There's a 2011 debate about the lack of neutrality on the Talkpage, but it didn't get very far, ending with the (self-appointed?) Consul General declaring the editor's efforts to be "treasonable"! To me, it just doesn't look right, but I'd be interested in others' thoughts. KJP1 ( talk) 10:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There is currently an RfC about the transliterated and Russian names of Belarus' in the page's opening paragraph. Your input would be appreciated. It can be found here. – Sabbatino ( talk) 13:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Are timelines acceptable in main pages of countries' or country groups' as can be seen at Nordic countries#Timeline? This has also been added to Baltic states page, but I have removed it. If I remember correctly these were removed at some point from every pages regarding cities, countries or country groups, but I cannot seem to find the discussion about it. Any help would be appreciated. – Sabbatino ( talk) 17:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
You are welcome to discuss the newly created {{ Infobox folk song}} and its future here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtam90 ( talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{ Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
There is RfC in the Jordan article about the etymology section. Makeandtoss ( talk) 16:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements to the List of ISO 3166 country codes. Thanks, Buaidh talk contribs 15:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Category:Swaziland, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Eswatini. The nomination includes proposals to similarly rename 434 sub-categories of Category:Swaziland. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Could I ask for some comments on the inclusion of slavery stats at Talk:Dominican Republic#Slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. -- Izno Repeat ( talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia on including a brief summary of the main economic aspects of the Saudi Vision 2030 program. I've suggested some options for this, which editors here are invited to give feedback on. Thanks. Tarafa15 ( talk) 15:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Category:Republic of Macedonia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming, along with hundreds of its subcategories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Should
demonym links in all country infoboxes be changed from linking to the article on that word to linking to demographics for the country? For example change demonym = [[Danes|Danish]]|Dane
to demonym = [[Demographics of Denmark|Danish]]|[[Demographics of Denmark|Dane]]
.
21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that APG1984 ( talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. ( diff)
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [11], [12], [13], [14])
— Note: Sashko1999 is indefinitely blocked for violating a topic ban. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
The Greeks or Hellenes are an ethnic group native to...) seems to imply that citizens of Greece not belonging to the ethnic group are not Greek, while they are. We should try to use wording (and the philosophy that goes with it) such as
Danes are a nation and ethnic group,
The French are an ethnic group and nation who are identified with the country of France,
Canadians are people identified with the country of Canada.Place Clichy ( talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I changed the links of the demonyms because there were putted wrong links, I already explained why, but I will explain again. First, we need to differentiate that demonym and ethnonym are not the same thing, the DEMONYM refers to all citizens of one country, and the ETHNONYM refers to people of a particular ethnic group. There is a explanation here what is demonym. /info/en/?search=Demonym is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place. So, why for example the demonym Danish/Dane is going to the link Danes if the demonym is a word that identifies RESIDENTS OR NATIVES of a particular place?, did that's mean that in Denmark lives just ethnic Danes?, apsolutely no, in Denmark lives many other ethnic groups and they are also Danes by citizenship or by birth place. Because the link for the demonym Danish/Danes should go to the link demographics of Denmark because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Denmark. Sashko1999 ( talk) 13:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is about Danes as a nation and ethnic group. Read some history and ethnology, find some good scientific sources to support your claims (which I'm sorry, they don't exist) and then you can start talking about demonyms and ethnonyms. Argean ( talk) 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Dane is a word for a peron of Denmark, but also for an ethnic Dane, so, it has double meaning, but when we talk about the demonym Dane, we mean on a person from Denmark, and that person can be of any ethnicity, because the link can't go to the ethnic Danes, with that we discriminate all people who are from Denmark, and are not ethnic Danes. Sashko1999 ( talk) 14:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
We need to explain that the demonym Dane refers to all persons from Denmark, and not just to the ethnic Danes, but how we will explain that if we linking the demonym Dane to the ethnic group Danes, it's really apsurd and as I said with that we discriminate all people who are from Denmark, and are not ethnic Danes. Here is one example of discrimination. /info/en/?search=%C5%9Eaban_%C3%96zdo%C4%9Fan Şaban Özdoğan (born 14 March 1990) is a Danish footballer of Turkish descent who currently plays for Holbæk B&I in the Danish 2nd Division East. He previously played for Danish Superliga club F.C. Copenhagen. This football player is from Denmark, so, he's Danish by nationality and he should be included in the demonym Danish/Dane, but how will be if the link for the demonym goes to the ethnic Danes?
The problem is just with the demonyms of the countries where there is a dominant ethnic groups, but there is no need to change this in other places, for example in some place when we talk about some ethnic Dane, of course the link will going to the Danes. Here is one example for that. There are no official statistics on ethnic groups, but according to 2018 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86.7% of the population was of Danish descent (the link here goes to the ethnic Danes, defined as having at least one parent who was born in Denmark and has Danish citizenship. Sashko1999 ( talk) 15:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, the link Danes is just for the ethnic group Danes, and not for all citizens of Denmark such as the links Canadians, Americans, Argentines etc., but the demonym doesn't refers just to the ethnic Danes, because the link can't go to the Danes, but to the demographics of Denmark because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Denmark. Sashko1999 ( talk) 15:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Khajidha, /info/en/?search=%C5%9Eaban_%C3%96zdo%C4%9Fan Şaban Özdoğan is a 100% ethnic Turk from Denmark, is he Dane by nationality or no? Sashko1999 ( talk) 15:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Moxy, Danish/Dane is and national and ethnic term, so, it has a double meaning, I already said that, but the demonym refers from where is some person, and not of which ethnicity is he/she, because the link can't go to the ethnic group Danes. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Here clearly writes: This article is about Danes as a nation and ethnic group. Also writes: For information about residents or nationals of Denmark, see Demographics of Denmark, and the demonym is about the residents or nationals of Denmark, not about the ethnic group Danes. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, yes, that makes you British by nationality because you are a British national and you live in UK, so, If someone ask you from where are you, you will say from UK, and exactly that's the demonym, it describes from where is some person, and not of which ethnicity is he/she. Just to say that the British people are not an ethnic group, but that's the demonym for all the citizens of UK. /info/en/?search=British_people The British people, or the Britons, are the CITIZENS of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, because you said that you are a permenent resident of the UK, I thought that you live longer time there and that you have a British passport, if you don't have, then of course that you are not British by nationality. Sashko1999 ( talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
But the demonym refers to the residents or nationals of one country, not to one ethnic group of that country, and for example in Greece the residents ot nationals are not just the ethnic Greeks, because the link can't go the the Greeks, i don't know how do you don't understand. Sashko1999 ( talk) 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, you will not change your nationality, haha, tell me, do you know what's nationality? Sashko1999 ( talk) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Argean, you said a Greek can have various ethnic backgrounds, but most of them are also ethnically Greeks, that's completely true. Also, you said the demonym in the case of countries obviously refers to the people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country), that's also completely true. So, tell me now, how is it possible the link for the demonym Greek to go to the ethnic Greeks if not all people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country) are ethnic Greeks? Sashko1999 ( talk) 17:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
—DIYeditor, the article is good, Danes today are an ethnic group, so, the link for the demonym should be fixed.
https://www.britannica.com/place/Denmark/People Denmark is almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Danes.
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-living-in-denmark.html 9 out of 10 residents of Denmark identify as ethnic Danes... Sashko1999 ( talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Would someone uninvolved please close this RFC, Sashko1999 is indefed and this is a waste of time. —DIYeditor ( talk) 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Azerbaijan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Azerbaijan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 10:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Template_talk:Infobox_country#Metro_area_parameter. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mongolia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mongolia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 04:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kiribati is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kiribati until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 05:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Zimbabwe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zimbabwe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 07:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPC. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi guys, Please help in improving the Bangladesh country article, although the article is significantly developed, but not as compared to articles like India, Canada, Australia, Germany or Japan these are all FA status articles. Its my humble appeal to you please help nominate Bangladesh article as Good or Featured article. Thank You-- 2405:201:8803:5F9D:E994:F724:9292:CF71 ( talk) 06:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Armenia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 06:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Gabon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gabon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)