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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This still hasn't been resolved so I'm going to keep brining it up. Our current embassy and high commission articles are a eclectic mix of archetectural and diplomatic prespectives and naming conventions. My perfered solution is to clearly seperate building histories from mission histories. The logic is simple. A mission can occupy any number of buildings during its existance. (How many embassies to Germany had to move from Bonn to Berlin in recent years? Dozens.) A building may be used for many other purposes. (How many buildings have been used as chanceries or residences by multiple countries? Lots.) The model would be High Commission of Canada in London (mission history) which is seperate from Macdonald House and Canada House, the buildings which the mission operates from. Part of the solution, in my opinion, is to change our naming conventions to Fooland Embassy to Barland NOT in Barville. The embassy's seat might switch cities as the capital moves (Bonn to Berlin, Lagos to Abuja, etc.). They may simply open a new building because of the need for different facilities. One mission may own dozens of properties including chanceries, residences, consulates, etc. The history is continous at the level of the mission but the city or building has changed. Why wouldn't we do this? There is only one potential objection I can think of, countries changing their name but not their capital, and I have a solution to that. You might say, well an embassy in Moscow has always been in Moscow whether it was to the Soviet Union or to Russia. Right. Which is all the more reason to have a building history than can capture what went on in that building during the Soviet era, which is undoubtedly quite different from its modern functions. A even better solution might be to have seperate articles. Think of an embassy to China. It might have moved from Peking, to Nanking, to Taipei, and back to Beijing during the 20thC. Its history in each of those cities is related but seperate from the overall history of the mission. Can anyone give me a good reason not to do this? -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Bolivia–Russia relations, is it really that important and notable? -- Ssteiner209 ( talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed there's no article on diplomatic cables, any reason why? It seems like there would be a lot to write about - famous ones like the Zimmerman Telegram, Cable 243 etc, and their formatting and so on. I'd start one, but the lack of an article makes me wonder if it was some conscious decision not to have one? -- AW ( talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to let you all know that I've proposed the creation of a NATO Wikiproject, you can find the discussion about it here. Cool3 ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Help! A new editor, who is the CEO of this charity, has added a lot of non-notable information to this article. I know him personally and don't want to be the one to try to explain why he can't dump all that stuff into the article. Can anyone help, please? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time that we reconsider the layout of this article. The List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa makes use of a table with direct links to the Embassy's or Consulate's article, gives an image and the address. With London alone having so many diplomatic missions it should have it's own seperate article like the Ottawa one, especially now there are enough articles on the Embassies. Nearly every Embassy has a website with the ambassador and address in it and it's not hard to get a local wikipedian to take a photo of the required Embassy. I would like to hear of other users opinions so please respond. 95jb14 ( talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an on-going debate to establish I guess some kind of rules for Foreign relations articles and how to devise I guess what should be put up for deletion. Anyone interested may want to head over and state their position.
See here
CaribDigita ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I read this Houston Business Journal article about Sweden choosing Houston as a site for a career consulate in 2004: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/11/15/daily48.html?jst=b_ln_hl
The website here http://www.swedishconsulate.org/ refers to the "Honorary Consulate General of Sweden in Houston" - So is this a career consulate? WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have listed Ambassador of Russia to Austria for peer review, as I would like to take this to featured list nomination soon, but am looking for outside input on any improvements, etc which may be made to the article/list in order to improve it to give it greater chance of being passed. Please be kind, as this is my first time doing this, and it can be PR'ed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ambassador of Russia to Austria/archive1. Welcome any input anyone may have. Cheers, -- Russavia Dialogue 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up - I've tagged the stub with your project. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What would be the correct way to name the page Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations? (considering that the adjective "Bosnia–Herzegovina" causes ambiguity and "Bosnian" is mostly understood to refer only to the language) — Admiral Norton ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer the adjective form because that is what makes sense grammatically. "Greece relations"? It needs to be "Greek relations" and the addition of another country does not change this. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of United Nations peacekeeping missions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion 0422 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
for the record, as an Englishman, relations between France and the USA are not something that overly concerns me. However, as a wikipedian, the quality of these articles is. I came across Consulate General of France in Atlanta through the new pages patrol, and have lent it the benefit of my copy editing and referencing expertise, then found Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. while trying to de-orphan the former, the latter being in an even worse state. I'm currently working on that one, though I wondered if someone here would be interested in taking a look at some of the related articles- many seem to be missing- London, for example- and lots are merely stubs, though for two of the most powerful countries on Earth, I would say these articles are of very high importance and need to be expanded, especially since the information is out there. Anybody who can dig me up a few sources besides the official websites, it would be greatly appreciated! A reply or talkback on my own talk page and I'd be much obliged! HJMitchell You rang? 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) NB: I've left a similar note on the talk page of WP:WikiProject France
There's a bandwagon deleting various country relations articles based on if that nominator knows of ties or not. Is there any current movements towards establishing what should be the basic criteria of country vs. country relations articles???? For example: Some countries may not have relations as robust as others but should that preclude completely them from outlining what their relations is with that other country?
I've seen two different sets of criteria used to nominate articles and I think an established criteria set should be formulated. Some things I thought of and certainly could be considered. Silly things too like ( Canada–Haiti relations) I mean hello Canada is working on a mission in Haiti. Barbados–Nigeria relations (heck most Barbadians today are decedents of Nigeria and Ghana.
CaribDigita ( talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an update.... If you have an interest see here.
or
CaribDigita ( talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion- see WP:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Pakistan relations. I've tagged it for rescue and I wonder if anybody here has the expertise to help it out. HJMitchell You rang? 10:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Examples:
Ikip ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow - Embassy of Angola in Moscow A user proposed for deletion. WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the independent countries and also some unrecognized countries and the EU have such articles. As SMOM is a sovereign entitiy engaging in diplomatic relations with states maybe there should be articles for its missions too? Alinor ( talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston - Someone has nominated the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston - Someone has nominated the Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
<discussion moved from User talk:Bali ultimate> Today you re-added {{ primarysources}} to the above article, despite the fact that it includes several inline references, I compiled from various contributors. Can you be a bit more specific which elements you feel aren't sufficiently sourced, possible adding citation needed to each of them. Thank you. -- User:Docu
For your convenience, I added a copy of the article you tagged above and numbered a series of statements. Please detail which ones you don't consider sufficiently referenced. -- User:Docu </discussion moved from User talk:Bali ultimate 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)> |
As this is of more general interest, I moved the discussion here instead of Talk:Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Bali ultimate had declined to answer any questions on his talk page.
Please be specific when commenting. Instead of saying, "'the sources' don't meet the criteria of 'Wikipedia' or some two-letter short-cut", please indicate "#1 doesn't need a reference as both are countries listed in the relevant ISO standard" or "the second part of #1 doesn't mention a reference and, as Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources requires to 'avoid repeating gossip', it should be removed." -- User:Docu 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC), updated 08:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
|
There's a request here to move "Shirley Temple" to "Shirley Temple Black". Folks might like to weigh in with their opinions. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As you guys doubtless know there's been concerted efforts recently to delete as many of the bilateral relations articles as possible. There's been considerable support for these entires at the ADF pages but some editors have taken to trying to get articles removed through the back door.
So if you have a few minutes for helping to save existing articles its worth keeping an eye on this bot generated page that lists the pages currently proded for deletion, as well as the main ADF page . Saving a prodded article is much easier than a ADF debate as you just have to remove the template from the top of the article and as a courtesy put a {{ Oldprodfull}} tag on the articles talk page, and a {{ Deprod}} tag on the prodders talk page. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What you're labelling as trivia is important information about relations between pairs of countries. That aside, some are utter bollocks, I'll give you that, but some are worth saving and you're showing no regard whatsoever for the articles that could be developed into something meaningful and other editors are getting swept along with it. I couldn't agree more that the worst of them should be consigned to the dustbin, though I think it speaks volumes that my invitation to help on Argentina–Pakistan relations was ignored. HJMitchell You rang? 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable, since you have quoted me earlier on this talk page as one of Biruitorul's "allies" I feel that I may be part of your perceived "elite demolition crew". So perhaps it helps to reduce tensions if I explain exactly what motivates me to "reduc[e] the number of X–Y relations articles dramatically". First, I am not sure how many of these there actually are; I just look at those that make it to AfD or central noticeboards. If there are thousands of high-quality articles of this kind that never get into my focus because they are not being proposed for deletion, then I take back the word "dramatically". Of course the matter got my attention due to the mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles (I don't know who exactly was responsible for that and if it has stopped now), and the disruptive attempts to save them (by Hilary T and others). Here are some principles that I expect we don't agree about, and that are significant for the way I see these articles. Sorry it's so long; I don't have the time to make it shorter.
I look up the word actor in the dictionary and it says "one that takes part in any affair". Rather vague in this case. What does it include specifically?
Dream Focus 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
For bilateral relations articles, each article should probably include the banners of the WikiProjects for the two country projects banners in addition to:
-- User:Docu
One of the questions generally address in bilateral relations, is how many nationals of one country reside in the other one. Which would be appropriate sources these? The general rule seems to be that census numbers are generally reliable and can be used as such. -- User:Docu (June 15, 2009)
We could use the primary source, i.e. a document from the country that recognizes another one to source this, but a generally a reliable one would be that date supplied by the country that was recognized. -- User:Docu (June 17, 2009)
Good day, everyone! I would just like to let everyone know that currently, there is a discussion underway at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Requested move about a renaming of the article from its current name (" 2008 South Ossetia war") to "Russia-Georgia war" or "Russian-Georgian war". This discussion seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war!
A similar discussion already occurred about two to three months ago, during which an extraordinarily slim majority of users (the final tally was 24-23, although one user voted for both sides) defeated the proposed renaming. However, the renaming proposal was brought back up, as some individuals feel that a new consensus has appeared, while other users believe that the consensus has not changed since the last polling.
I hope that the input from this project will help get the discussion back on track, so that the improvement of this article, which your project considers to be of Top Importance, will swiftly continue. And personally, I don't really care what we call the war, as long as we consider our readers in the process. Thank you, and happy editing! Laurinavicius ( talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The debate over how to deal with all the stub "x - y relations" articles led to creation of lists in many of the "Foreign relations of x" articles, and the start of a process to merge the stubs into these lists. Typically, each list entry gives the date when diplomatic relations began, a link to an article on the relations if there is one, and the missions (e.g. embassy, consulate general) serving the relationship:
Country | Formal Relations Began | Notes |
---|---|---|
Algeria | 1980-07-31 |
|
Angola | See
Angola–Zimbabwe relations
|
The set of countries included in each "foreign relations of x" list is arbitrary: just the countries for which there is an article or stub on bi-lateral relations. There may be other countries with more significant relations that at least deserve a list entry, if not a complete article. One measure of relationship's significance is whether the countries have resident embassies or consulates general. With many countries there are articles that list "missions of" and "missions in". E.g. List of diplomatic missions of Guyana and List of diplomatic missions in Guyana.
Question: Should the three types of list: "bilateral relations of country x", "list of missions of country x" and "list of missions in country x" be consolidated into one table, giving a more complete view? See Foreign relations of Zimbabwe for a pilot article that takes this approach. Or are there good reasons to keep the three types of list in separate articles? Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't address directly your question, but instead of a table, I think a structure with a series of infoboxes could be helpful, similar to episode lists. -- User:Docu
{| class="wikitable sortable" |- ! Country !! Formal Relations Began !! Representations !! Notes {{Infobox Bilateral relations||Algeria|Zimbabwe |view=table2|start=1980-07-31|article=|missions1=embassy in Harare|missions2=|notes=}} |}
Which can render as:
Country | Formal Relations Began | Representations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Algeria | 1980-07-31 | embassy in Harare |
-- User:Docu
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:
For a while now, bilateral articles have been using the naming conventions found in proposal #2. As such, I removed the guideline from the WikiProject page because I felt it no longer represented consensus. Since then, two editors have decided to readd the "guideline" so I broke it up into two proposals and have taken it here. People who post here please comment on the possible negative and positives of both proposals, comment on which one you support, and add any other suggestions you have for moving forward with these conventions. Tavix | Talk 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to create a consistent naming scheme on Wikipedia:
under the format "NationA-NationB relations". Please state whether you support or oppose the idea of not changing the titles. Mandsford ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Treaties between the two countries are generally an important element to mention in the articles about bilateral relations. Frequently a listing and sometimes the original treaty text is available from embassies' and ministries of foreign affairs' websites. We discussed this type of sourcing in a previous discussion. They provide an acceptable reference for the existence of such treaties. Sometimes, more detailed sources are available, i.e. a secondary source indicating when the treaty was signed, ratified and since when it was valid. This is generally through the government entity in charge of publishing legislation for each country. Where treaties are available online, this can simplify sourcing. If there is need to create separate articles on specific treaties, additional articles providing a discussion of the treaties should be added. -- User: Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Details of state visits seem a popular element for bilateral articles. Usual sources for such could be media/press reports and accounts from the governments themselves. Sometimes photographs of such visits are available to be hosted on commons and could be used to illustrate articles. -- User: Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
When bilateral relations are dealt in the foreign relations' article of one or the other country, generally a redirect from the usual article title formats for bilateral relations to this table seems helpful. If both countries foreign relations article deal with it, at least two redirects should be made, one to each. Generally the name of the country that is mentioned first would be the target article. -- User: Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to reroute me if there's a better place to bring this up. Which is our standard term, "Consulate-General" with a hyphen or "Consulate General" without a hyphen? I'm seeing both in articles, often even mixed in the same article, and I'm not sure which fix is the right one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Otumba ( talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a sub-group within this project that deals specifically with the international 'management' of emigration/immigration encompassing IATA, International Labour Organisation, International Organization for Migration, UNHCR etc.? RashersTierney ( talk) 10:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
What should we title bileteral relations articles? Fuller discussion on talk page. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Starting a request for comment to try and bottom this out once and for all. At the moment we have page moves being made unilaterly (normally from the adjective form to the noun form) despite there normally being no consensus when (rarely) such moves are brought up at requested moves. I have noticed a lot of these moves but as they don't affect one article it's hard to spot the problem, hence this RfC. Previous discussion here has not reached consensus but there was still a section on the project page suggesting the noun form (I've now removed it) and many editors seem to have been using this as justification despite there being no consensus (possibly not realising that there was none). I suggest that we don't discusses dashes and the like as there are already policies on these issues. As far as I can see there are three options:
To me the last is the obvious default choice if no consensus is reached for either of the first two. Whichever option is reached I suggest adding it to the project page. This includes the last option so that at least people know there's no consensus and so hopefully won't use a non-existant 'consensus' as justification for moves. If the last option is the result of this discussion I'd also suggested that no pages were moved from their current title without a requested moves discussion, working on the principal that there are likely to be supporters of both titles and so a discussion is the only way forward. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Some Google data. Please note that among the (few) noun–noun attestations, many are not actually in running text (but in headings, or in incidental collocations), and of the rest, a large number in each case appears to come from non-native writers.
"German–Japanese" | 14,300 | "Japanese–German" | 12,800 | "Germany–Japan" | 25 | "Japan–Germany" | 24 |
"German–French" | 14,900 [1] | "French–German" | 2,500 | "Germany–France" | 9 | "France–Germany" | 50 |
"German–Polish" | 336,000 | "Polish–German" | 67,500 | "Germany–Poland" | 27 | "Poland–Germany" | 18 |
"French–Italian" | 49 | "Italian–French" | 19 | "France–Italy" | 6 | "Italy–France" | 3 |
"Polish–Russian" | 18,900 | "Russian–Polish" | 5,130 | "Poland–Russia" | 32 | "Russia–Poland" | 108 |
"Greek–Albanian" | 20,600 | "Albanian–Greek" | 1,030 | "Greece–Albania" | 14 | "Albania–Greece" | 10 |
"Greek–Turkish" | 16,440 | "Turkish–Greek" | 5,250 | "Greece–Turkey" | 97 | "Turkey–Greece" | 96 |
-- Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it's been two weeks since the last comment above so it seems unlikely we'll get any more comments. It seems clear to me that there is no consensus therefore I propose adding the following to the project page:
Dpmuk ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to close this as there's been no discussion for some time. I'm going to boldly put the text mentioned above on the project page as it seems a fair summary of the discussion. If anyone who has commented above disagrees with my closure please feel free to revert as I realise I'm not neutral on this issue. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Should there be an article regarding the case of Christopher Savoie? It has already been covered on CNN, CBS and NY Daily News. Thus meeting WP:NN, furthermore it relates to the article International parental abduction in Japan, which should fall within the scope of this wikiproject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A number of Iranian editors are attempting to add poorly sourced or unsourced claims to Human rights concerning a 6th century BC artifact, the Cyrus cylinder. They claim that it is supposedly the world's first charter of human rights, and that the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great effectively originated the concept of human rights. (To summarize, this is a fringe theory promoted by the late Shah of Iran in the 1970s as part of his regime's propaganda and has subsequently been promoted by Iranian ultranationalists, particularly in the pro-Shah diaspora. Mainstream historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic.) This has previously been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's now being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Religious tolerance and Achaemenids. Human rights is listed as a high-importance article for this WikiProject so some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Mosedschurte has twice removed the WikiProject Politics banner from the above articles talk page, when the topic obviously falls within the project. Please keep an eye out in case he removes it again. Willy turner ( talk) 09:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Relating to an unresponded to discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard an IP editor has added the Republic of China to the Government in exile article. Past consensus has been that the Republic of China is not in exile, as the IP editor has claimed; therefore, without new consensus or references provided, the content was removed from the article. Relevant articles relating to this topic are Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Treaty of Taipei. This is a highly contentious topic, and as such WP:NEU clearly applies, and discussion should attempt to remain civil.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I ran across this concept while browsing around, saw no article so tried to dig up some info. I'm a little confused as to how these organisations worked and what the overlap was, and apparently some pretty major figures ( WEB DuBois, Rose Standish Nichols , etc) were involved in this process. I'd appreciate any help in digging up info on the subject. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.-- JL 09 q?c 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject International relations to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( Southern Stars photo poll) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, It's a pain in the neck sometimes to type in all the countries in the world (e.g. when creating templates), so I created this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/List of countries. I used this in, for instance, Template:Politics of the world, which looks like this:
Tisane ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have put the GA review of Semi-periphery countries on hold as I feel based on a source check that there is a possibility the information as presented could be unreliable. I would like an expert on the subject to check over the article before resuming the review. See Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA2. SilkTork * YES! 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This still hasn't been resolved so I'm going to keep brining it up. Our current embassy and high commission articles are a eclectic mix of archetectural and diplomatic prespectives and naming conventions. My perfered solution is to clearly seperate building histories from mission histories. The logic is simple. A mission can occupy any number of buildings during its existance. (How many embassies to Germany had to move from Bonn to Berlin in recent years? Dozens.) A building may be used for many other purposes. (How many buildings have been used as chanceries or residences by multiple countries? Lots.) The model would be High Commission of Canada in London (mission history) which is seperate from Macdonald House and Canada House, the buildings which the mission operates from. Part of the solution, in my opinion, is to change our naming conventions to Fooland Embassy to Barland NOT in Barville. The embassy's seat might switch cities as the capital moves (Bonn to Berlin, Lagos to Abuja, etc.). They may simply open a new building because of the need for different facilities. One mission may own dozens of properties including chanceries, residences, consulates, etc. The history is continous at the level of the mission but the city or building has changed. Why wouldn't we do this? There is only one potential objection I can think of, countries changing their name but not their capital, and I have a solution to that. You might say, well an embassy in Moscow has always been in Moscow whether it was to the Soviet Union or to Russia. Right. Which is all the more reason to have a building history than can capture what went on in that building during the Soviet era, which is undoubtedly quite different from its modern functions. A even better solution might be to have seperate articles. Think of an embassy to China. It might have moved from Peking, to Nanking, to Taipei, and back to Beijing during the 20thC. Its history in each of those cities is related but seperate from the overall history of the mission. Can anyone give me a good reason not to do this? -- Kevlar ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Bolivia–Russia relations, is it really that important and notable? -- Ssteiner209 ( talk) 13:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I noticed there's no article on diplomatic cables, any reason why? It seems like there would be a lot to write about - famous ones like the Zimmerman Telegram, Cable 243 etc, and their formatting and so on. I'd start one, but the lack of an article makes me wonder if it was some conscious decision not to have one? -- AW ( talk) 05:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'd just like to let you all know that I've proposed the creation of a NATO Wikiproject, you can find the discussion about it here. Cool3 ( talk) 05:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Help! A new editor, who is the CEO of this charity, has added a lot of non-notable information to this article. I know him personally and don't want to be the one to try to explain why he can't dump all that stuff into the article. Can anyone help, please? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time that we reconsider the layout of this article. The List of diplomatic missions in Ottawa makes use of a table with direct links to the Embassy's or Consulate's article, gives an image and the address. With London alone having so many diplomatic missions it should have it's own seperate article like the Ottawa one, especially now there are enough articles on the Embassies. Nearly every Embassy has a website with the ambassador and address in it and it's not hard to get a local wikipedian to take a photo of the required Embassy. I would like to hear of other users opinions so please respond. 95jb14 ( talk) 16:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
There is an on-going debate to establish I guess some kind of rules for Foreign relations articles and how to devise I guess what should be put up for deletion. Anyone interested may want to head over and state their position.
See here
CaribDigita ( talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
I read this Houston Business Journal article about Sweden choosing Houston as a site for a career consulate in 2004: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2004/11/15/daily48.html?jst=b_ln_hl
The website here http://www.swedishconsulate.org/ refers to the "Honorary Consulate General of Sweden in Houston" - So is this a career consulate? WhisperToMe ( talk) 02:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I have listed Ambassador of Russia to Austria for peer review, as I would like to take this to featured list nomination soon, but am looking for outside input on any improvements, etc which may be made to the article/list in order to improve it to give it greater chance of being passed. Please be kind, as this is my first time doing this, and it can be PR'ed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ambassador of Russia to Austria/archive1. Welcome any input anyone may have. Cheers, -- Russavia Dialogue 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just a heads up - I've tagged the stub with your project. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
What would be the correct way to name the page Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations? (considering that the adjective "Bosnia–Herzegovina" causes ambiguity and "Bosnian" is mostly understood to refer only to the language) — Admiral Norton ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer the adjective form because that is what makes sense grammatically. "Greece relations"? It needs to be "Greek relations" and the addition of another country does not change this. Grk1011/Stephen ( talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated List of United Nations peacekeeping missions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion 0422 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
for the record, as an Englishman, relations between France and the USA are not something that overly concerns me. However, as a wikipedian, the quality of these articles is. I came across Consulate General of France in Atlanta through the new pages patrol, and have lent it the benefit of my copy editing and referencing expertise, then found Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. while trying to de-orphan the former, the latter being in an even worse state. I'm currently working on that one, though I wondered if someone here would be interested in taking a look at some of the related articles- many seem to be missing- London, for example- and lots are merely stubs, though for two of the most powerful countries on Earth, I would say these articles are of very high importance and need to be expanded, especially since the information is out there. Anybody who can dig me up a few sources besides the official websites, it would be greatly appreciated! A reply or talkback on my own talk page and I'd be much obliged! HJMitchell You rang? 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) NB: I've left a similar note on the talk page of WP:WikiProject France
There's a bandwagon deleting various country relations articles based on if that nominator knows of ties or not. Is there any current movements towards establishing what should be the basic criteria of country vs. country relations articles???? For example: Some countries may not have relations as robust as others but should that preclude completely them from outlining what their relations is with that other country?
I've seen two different sets of criteria used to nominate articles and I think an established criteria set should be formulated. Some things I thought of and certainly could be considered. Silly things too like ( Canada–Haiti relations) I mean hello Canada is working on a mission in Haiti. Barbados–Nigeria relations (heck most Barbadians today are decedents of Nigeria and Ghana.
CaribDigita ( talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Just an update.... If you have an interest see here.
or
CaribDigita ( talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This article has been nominated for deletion- see WP:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Pakistan relations. I've tagged it for rescue and I wonder if anybody here has the expertise to help it out. HJMitchell You rang? 10:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Examples:
Ikip ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow - Embassy of Angola in Moscow A user proposed for deletion. WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Most of the independent countries and also some unrecognized countries and the EU have such articles. As SMOM is a sovereign entitiy engaging in diplomatic relations with states maybe there should be articles for its missions too? Alinor ( talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston - Someone has nominated the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe ( talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston - Someone has nominated the Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
<discussion moved from User talk:Bali ultimate> Today you re-added {{ primarysources}} to the above article, despite the fact that it includes several inline references, I compiled from various contributors. Can you be a bit more specific which elements you feel aren't sufficiently sourced, possible adding citation needed to each of them. Thank you. -- User:Docu
For your convenience, I added a copy of the article you tagged above and numbered a series of statements. Please detail which ones you don't consider sufficiently referenced. -- User:Docu </discussion moved from User talk:Bali ultimate 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)> |
As this is of more general interest, I moved the discussion here instead of Talk:Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Bali ultimate had declined to answer any questions on his talk page.
Please be specific when commenting. Instead of saying, "'the sources' don't meet the criteria of 'Wikipedia' or some two-letter short-cut", please indicate "#1 doesn't need a reference as both are countries listed in the relevant ISO standard" or "the second part of #1 doesn't mention a reference and, as Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources requires to 'avoid repeating gossip', it should be removed." -- User:Docu 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC), updated 08:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
|
There's a request here to move "Shirley Temple" to "Shirley Temple Black". Folks might like to weigh in with their opinions. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
As you guys doubtless know there's been concerted efforts recently to delete as many of the bilateral relations articles as possible. There's been considerable support for these entires at the ADF pages but some editors have taken to trying to get articles removed through the back door.
So if you have a few minutes for helping to save existing articles its worth keeping an eye on this bot generated page that lists the pages currently proded for deletion, as well as the main ADF page . Saving a prodded article is much easier than a ADF debate as you just have to remove the template from the top of the article and as a courtesy put a {{ Oldprodfull}} tag on the articles talk page, and a {{ Deprod}} tag on the prodders talk page. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
What you're labelling as trivia is important information about relations between pairs of countries. That aside, some are utter bollocks, I'll give you that, but some are worth saving and you're showing no regard whatsoever for the articles that could be developed into something meaningful and other editors are getting swept along with it. I couldn't agree more that the worst of them should be consigned to the dustbin, though I think it speaks volumes that my invitation to help on Argentina–Pakistan relations was ignored. HJMitchell You rang? 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
FeydHuxtable, since you have quoted me earlier on this talk page as one of Biruitorul's "allies" I feel that I may be part of your perceived "elite demolition crew". So perhaps it helps to reduce tensions if I explain exactly what motivates me to "reduc[e] the number of X–Y relations articles dramatically". First, I am not sure how many of these there actually are; I just look at those that make it to AfD or central noticeboards. If there are thousands of high-quality articles of this kind that never get into my focus because they are not being proposed for deletion, then I take back the word "dramatically". Of course the matter got my attention due to the mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles (I don't know who exactly was responsible for that and if it has stopped now), and the disruptive attempts to save them (by Hilary T and others). Here are some principles that I expect we don't agree about, and that are significant for the way I see these articles. Sorry it's so long; I don't have the time to make it shorter.
I look up the word actor in the dictionary and it says "one that takes part in any affair". Rather vague in this case. What does it include specifically?
Dream Focus 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
For bilateral relations articles, each article should probably include the banners of the WikiProjects for the two country projects banners in addition to:
-- User:Docu
One of the questions generally address in bilateral relations, is how many nationals of one country reside in the other one. Which would be appropriate sources these? The general rule seems to be that census numbers are generally reliable and can be used as such. -- User:Docu (June 15, 2009)
We could use the primary source, i.e. a document from the country that recognizes another one to source this, but a generally a reliable one would be that date supplied by the country that was recognized. -- User:Docu (June 17, 2009)
Good day, everyone! I would just like to let everyone know that currently, there is a discussion underway at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Requested move about a renaming of the article from its current name (" 2008 South Ossetia war") to "Russia-Georgia war" or "Russian-Georgian war". This discussion seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war!
A similar discussion already occurred about two to three months ago, during which an extraordinarily slim majority of users (the final tally was 24-23, although one user voted for both sides) defeated the proposed renaming. However, the renaming proposal was brought back up, as some individuals feel that a new consensus has appeared, while other users believe that the consensus has not changed since the last polling.
I hope that the input from this project will help get the discussion back on track, so that the improvement of this article, which your project considers to be of Top Importance, will swiftly continue. And personally, I don't really care what we call the war, as long as we consider our readers in the process. Thank you, and happy editing! Laurinavicius ( talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The debate over how to deal with all the stub "x - y relations" articles led to creation of lists in many of the "Foreign relations of x" articles, and the start of a process to merge the stubs into these lists. Typically, each list entry gives the date when diplomatic relations began, a link to an article on the relations if there is one, and the missions (e.g. embassy, consulate general) serving the relationship:
Country | Formal Relations Began | Notes |
---|---|---|
Algeria | 1980-07-31 |
|
Angola | See
Angola–Zimbabwe relations
|
The set of countries included in each "foreign relations of x" list is arbitrary: just the countries for which there is an article or stub on bi-lateral relations. There may be other countries with more significant relations that at least deserve a list entry, if not a complete article. One measure of relationship's significance is whether the countries have resident embassies or consulates general. With many countries there are articles that list "missions of" and "missions in". E.g. List of diplomatic missions of Guyana and List of diplomatic missions in Guyana.
Question: Should the three types of list: "bilateral relations of country x", "list of missions of country x" and "list of missions in country x" be consolidated into one table, giving a more complete view? See Foreign relations of Zimbabwe for a pilot article that takes this approach. Or are there good reasons to keep the three types of list in separate articles? Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't address directly your question, but instead of a table, I think a structure with a series of infoboxes could be helpful, similar to episode lists. -- User:Docu
{| class="wikitable sortable" |- ! Country !! Formal Relations Began !! Representations !! Notes {{Infobox Bilateral relations||Algeria|Zimbabwe |view=table2|start=1980-07-31|article=|missions1=embassy in Harare|missions2=|notes=}} |}
Which can render as:
Country | Formal Relations Began | Representations | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Algeria | 1980-07-31 | embassy in Harare |
-- User:Docu
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:
For a while now, bilateral articles have been using the naming conventions found in proposal #2. As such, I removed the guideline from the WikiProject page because I felt it no longer represented consensus. Since then, two editors have decided to readd the "guideline" so I broke it up into two proposals and have taken it here. People who post here please comment on the possible negative and positives of both proposals, comment on which one you support, and add any other suggestions you have for moving forward with these conventions. Tavix | Talk 00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to create a consistent naming scheme on Wikipedia:
under the format "NationA-NationB relations". Please state whether you support or oppose the idea of not changing the titles. Mandsford ( talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Support
Oppose
Treaties between the two countries are generally an important element to mention in the articles about bilateral relations. Frequently a listing and sometimes the original treaty text is available from embassies' and ministries of foreign affairs' websites. We discussed this type of sourcing in a previous discussion. They provide an acceptable reference for the existence of such treaties. Sometimes, more detailed sources are available, i.e. a secondary source indicating when the treaty was signed, ratified and since when it was valid. This is generally through the government entity in charge of publishing legislation for each country. Where treaties are available online, this can simplify sourcing. If there is need to create separate articles on specific treaties, additional articles providing a discussion of the treaties should be added. -- User: Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Details of state visits seem a popular element for bilateral articles. Usual sources for such could be media/press reports and accounts from the governments themselves. Sometimes photographs of such visits are available to be hosted on commons and could be used to illustrate articles. -- User: Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
When bilateral relations are dealt in the foreign relations' article of one or the other country, generally a redirect from the usual article title formats for bilateral relations to this table seems helpful. If both countries foreign relations article deal with it, at least two redirects should be made, one to each. Generally the name of the country that is mentioned first would be the target article. -- User: Docu at 07:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to reroute me if there's a better place to bring this up. Which is our standard term, "Consulate-General" with a hyphen or "Consulate General" without a hyphen? I'm seeing both in articles, often even mixed in the same article, and I'm not sure which fix is the right one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated George F. Kennan for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Otumba ( talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a sub-group within this project that deals specifically with the international 'management' of emigration/immigration encompassing IATA, International Labour Organisation, International Organization for Migration, UNHCR etc.? RashersTierney ( talk) 10:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thomas Jefferson has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 20:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
What should we title bileteral relations articles? Fuller discussion on talk page. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Starting a request for comment to try and bottom this out once and for all. At the moment we have page moves being made unilaterly (normally from the adjective form to the noun form) despite there normally being no consensus when (rarely) such moves are brought up at requested moves. I have noticed a lot of these moves but as they don't affect one article it's hard to spot the problem, hence this RfC. Previous discussion here has not reached consensus but there was still a section on the project page suggesting the noun form (I've now removed it) and many editors seem to have been using this as justification despite there being no consensus (possibly not realising that there was none). I suggest that we don't discusses dashes and the like as there are already policies on these issues. As far as I can see there are three options:
To me the last is the obvious default choice if no consensus is reached for either of the first two. Whichever option is reached I suggest adding it to the project page. This includes the last option so that at least people know there's no consensus and so hopefully won't use a non-existant 'consensus' as justification for moves. If the last option is the result of this discussion I'd also suggested that no pages were moved from their current title without a requested moves discussion, working on the principal that there are likely to be supporters of both titles and so a discussion is the only way forward. Dpmuk ( talk) 22:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Some Google data. Please note that among the (few) noun–noun attestations, many are not actually in running text (but in headings, or in incidental collocations), and of the rest, a large number in each case appears to come from non-native writers.
"German–Japanese" | 14,300 | "Japanese–German" | 12,800 | "Germany–Japan" | 25 | "Japan–Germany" | 24 |
"German–French" | 14,900 [1] | "French–German" | 2,500 | "Germany–France" | 9 | "France–Germany" | 50 |
"German–Polish" | 336,000 | "Polish–German" | 67,500 | "Germany–Poland" | 27 | "Poland–Germany" | 18 |
"French–Italian" | 49 | "Italian–French" | 19 | "France–Italy" | 6 | "Italy–France" | 3 |
"Polish–Russian" | 18,900 | "Russian–Polish" | 5,130 | "Poland–Russia" | 32 | "Russia–Poland" | 108 |
"Greek–Albanian" | 20,600 | "Albanian–Greek" | 1,030 | "Greece–Albania" | 14 | "Albania–Greece" | 10 |
"Greek–Turkish" | 16,440 | "Turkish–Greek" | 5,250 | "Greece–Turkey" | 97 | "Turkey–Greece" | 96 |
-- Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Well it's been two weeks since the last comment above so it seems unlikely we'll get any more comments. It seems clear to me that there is no consensus therefore I propose adding the following to the project page:
Dpmuk ( talk) 22:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to close this as there's been no discussion for some time. I'm going to boldly put the text mentioned above on the project page as it seems a fair summary of the discussion. If anyone who has commented above disagrees with my closure please feel free to revert as I realise I'm not neutral on this issue. Dpmuk ( talk) 10:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Should there be an article regarding the case of Christopher Savoie? It has already been covered on CNN, CBS and NY Daily News. Thus meeting WP:NN, furthermore it relates to the article International parental abduction in Japan, which should fall within the scope of this wikiproject. -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
A number of Iranian editors are attempting to add poorly sourced or unsourced claims to Human rights concerning a 6th century BC artifact, the Cyrus cylinder. They claim that it is supposedly the world's first charter of human rights, and that the Persian emperor Cyrus the Great effectively originated the concept of human rights. (To summarize, this is a fringe theory promoted by the late Shah of Iran in the 1970s as part of his regime's propaganda and has subsequently been promoted by Iranian ultranationalists, particularly in the pro-Shah diaspora. Mainstream historians reject this viewpoint as tendentious and anachronistic.) This has previously been discussed on the fringe theories noticeboard on two previous occasions. It's now being discussed at Talk:Human rights#Religious tolerance and Achaemenids. Human rights is listed as a high-importance article for this WikiProject so some input from outside editors would be appreciated. -- ChrisO ( talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
User:Mosedschurte has twice removed the WikiProject Politics banner from the above articles talk page, when the topic obviously falls within the project. Please keep an eye out in case he removes it again. Willy turner ( talk) 09:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Relating to an unresponded to discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard an IP editor has added the Republic of China to the Government in exile article. Past consensus has been that the Republic of China is not in exile, as the IP editor has claimed; therefore, without new consensus or references provided, the content was removed from the article. Relevant articles relating to this topic are Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Treaty of Taipei. This is a highly contentious topic, and as such WP:NEU clearly applies, and discussion should attempt to remain civil.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I ran across this concept while browsing around, saw no article so tried to dig up some info. I'm a little confused as to how these organisations worked and what the overlap was, and apparently some pretty major figures ( WEB DuBois, Rose Standish Nichols , etc) were involved in this process. I'd appreciate any help in digging up info on the subject. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 19:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Recently, all articles regarding the 2009 flu pandemic by continent was moved by Immunize. I don't know if consensus needs it to be moved, but I reverted it before when TouLouse made the same thing. This day, Immunize moved all articles. A closing admin on 2009 flu pandemic in Europe's requested moved (moving back from 2009-2010 name to its 2009 original name) noted that the disease came up by 2009, so there is nothing worthy to call it "2009-2010". Any opinion? (Should somebody voted these to be back in their original names?) Thanks.-- JL 09 q?c 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject International relations to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey ( Southern Stars photo poll) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi all, It's a pain in the neck sometimes to type in all the countries in the world (e.g. when creating templates), so I created this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/List of countries. I used this in, for instance, Template:Politics of the world, which looks like this:
Tisane ( talk) 21:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I have put the GA review of Semi-periphery countries on hold as I feel based on a source check that there is a possibility the information as presented could be unreliable. I would like an expert on the subject to check over the article before resuming the review. See Talk:Semi-periphery countries/GA2. SilkTork * YES! 12:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as your project's banner is on the article talk page. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 23:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)