Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 8

message: Hello, I had a question regarding the territorial limits of countries as operationally defined on Wikipedia.  With respect to Wikipedia categories that categorize things by if they are "in" a country, are the territorial limits of countries either a) Its land borders, not extending to sea, b) Limited by its furthest internal waters as defined in the article territorial waters, or c) something else?  I believe b, but I sought confirmation.  Any assistance with answering this question of what constitues a country's ultimate territorial limits would be greatly appreciated. Kurieeto 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial limits 

message: I have applied  to some of the navigational templates (mostly continental ones). I think other such templates would benefit from this format. 
I haven't invented anything, this format was used for templates for europe asia etc, I just collected the elements into a single generic template for easier use (so as to evade the usage of a number of easy to break s). 
--Cat out 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes]] 

message: Hi, I've just listed Scotland for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland - your comments on improving this coutry article are welcomed. Thanks/wangi 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland peer review 

message: In want to join this wikiproject and it said leave a comment on the talk page, well here it is! Jamie|C  01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: Hi, I am starting again to work on the project :m:Mass content adding. One of the points of the project is to use templates from bigger Wikipedias (in general, from English Wikipedia), to localize them and to make bot-commiting to the small Wikipedias. For that purpose, I think that countries should be the first pilot-project. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more information (I was a long time out of this project and I forgot that I made some text about countires there): look at :m:Mass content adding/Countries of the world. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass content adding to small Wikipedias 

message: Hi, as an active participant in Malta article and in various geographical articles, I would like to join the wikiproject countries. Please add me to the members list.  Also advise whether a userbox to this respect is available. Maltesedog 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add me 

message: I just wanted to say hello to everyone in the wikiproject. I just joined the project and will be adding mostly to 3 countries. These countries are Cyprus, Switzerland and my favorite Thailand (Needs a lot of work!). If I can ever be of assistance just contact me on my discuss page and I will respond hopefully within 24 hours unless you post on the weekend. Felixboy 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello! 

message: File:Europe location ANR.png|Andorra
File:Europe location LIE.png|Liechtenstein
File:Europe location MCO.png|Monaco
--David Liuzzo 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small states

message: # Old - To ensure wikipedia uses a consistent style for all countries. The proposed new style is also inneffective for smaller countries, and does not offer (as other users have stated) the simplicity of the old design. I would be in favour of updating the locator maps, just not using the ones proposed (this was updated by Rob.derosa 19:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OLD Style

message: #Support Most people outside Europe consider French, Germans etc; as "European". The free trade agreement, the common passports - oh sod it I'm not going into it... you're all blindly patriotic; I'm never going to talk you round and its useless trying... haha.. I don't think everyone's ready for this... yet.... but the fact we're debating it is interesting enough. I'll persuade you next time this issue comes around. Which it will. :P Trip: The Light Fantastic 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW Euro only style

message: #New for all countries.  If we are going to change, then we should change every country to ensure consistent style. Keep it simple—no special highlighting. —MJCdetroit 17:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a fair tallying of the votes will note that most voters approve (as I am writing) the new maps, since you need to take the sum of the votes "with" EU and those "without" EU to compare the new vs. the old style. Luis rib 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only hope so, but as I've already seen in Talk:Greece#Map that's already used to say that there are more supporters for old style maps. -- AdrianTM 19:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW Style for ALL countries ''without'' the EU highlighting

message: # The older images' appeal is their more straightforward schematic look, while the newer alternatives may be more accurate and/or more informative but therefore less straightforward (more feature-laden, perhaps too feature-laden...?). So, I'm unsure... However, as these images are meant to serve as no more than locator maps rather than reference maps (for which I'd first look in the "See also" and/or "External links" sections of a country's article) then perhaps I slightly favo/ur the older, more schematic look. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral/Unsure

message: (gathered and presented by Arnoutf and SomeHuman)
The poll was open from November 16, 2006 untill January 31, 2007 19:00 UTC.
* 46 (unique) votes were cast:
* 18 votes (39%) to keep the old style maps (including 1 'red' user name; 1 duplicate vote was removed from this count)
* 25 votes (54%) to go for David Liuzzo style maps for which 
** 12 votes (26% of total) supported "Euro only style" (including 1 'red' user name and 2 'red' user IPs)
** 13 votes (28% of total) supported "Style for ALL countries without the EU highlighting" (excluding 1 vote as second choice after 'with EU highlighting' at which that user's vote is counted)
* 03 votes (07%) were neutral.
The plurality of voters prefer the old maps (39%)
The majority of voters prefer one of the new maps (54% : 26%+28%)
Caveat: January 1 2007 Davil Liuzzo uploaded a new version of his maps, 25 out of 46 (54%) were cast after January 1. This implicitly changed the obect of the poll, and we should be careful that this does confuse interpretation of the outcomes.
The balance pro/contra new maps is (25 + 3/2) / (18 + 3/2) = 26.5 : 19.5 which is a ratio of  1.36 : 1 — or 57.6% 'new' versus 42.4% 'old'
====Summary of arguments====
Please note that this is a summary of the comments made by all sides. The number of arguments listed here has not relation whatsoever to the tally of the votes, and is merely provided to give an overview of the differences in opinion voiced with the votes.
New maps or old
* Obviously all supporters of the new maps, support a change of map style. It should however be noted that  many of the supporters of the old style or the neutral option would support new maps with a higher level of detail. Those editors tended to disagree with several of the choices made in the development of the David Liuzzo maps, which maps were the specific focus of the poll. These opponents indicated they might support new maps if (some) adjustments were made.
Conceptual 
* Several supporters of the EU-highlighted maps argumented for the visibly identifiable EU status, in particular for its members; several voters from the three other sections expressed disagreement.
* Opponents mention that while the European continent centricity may work for most countries, a few boundary countries are not presented with a good reference to their region (e.g. the map of Greece, shows the close neighbours of Cyprus not as well depicted as far off Iceland). (This also addresses usability)
Aesthetic
* Many supporters of the new format dislike the plain grey-green; several supporters of the old format dislike the new color scheme.
Usability
* Several supporters of the new maps mention the higher level of detail is an improvement, several opponents agree a better detail level is an improvement, although some opponents mention that the level of detail in the David Liuzzo maps is too specific for the function of the maps, and makes location actually more difficult. The schematic approach of the old maps is favoured by some opponents
* Opponents comment that in the new maps, small countries are difficult to find, and a world locator is not present. (Note: This is adjusted in the second version of the maps - editorial remark by Arnoutf)
Wiki consistency
* Opponents argue that the old maps have become typical of Wiki style and should not be changed.
* Opponents argue that consistency all over Wikipedia is that important, we should only change after maps for each country of the world would be available. (Note: This is not to be expected in a near future - editorial remark by SomeHuman)  
* Supporters state both the arguments above would interfere with any innovation in any wiki.
Technical issues
* The current copyright with which the maps were uploaded is not a full release to the public domain. There seems to be agreement that this needs to be changed before the new maps can be adopted. (Note: The maps not highlighting the EU have a new copyright licence since February 2. Licence open for discussion - editorial remark by SomeHuman)
* A few opponents mention that the new maps are in PNG (bitmap) format, while for this type of type of graphics the SVG (vector) format is preferable. (Note that the current locator maps are also in PNG format - editorial comment Arnoutf)
* A few opponents state that the new maps are drawn using the Mercator projection which distorts northern countries (Iceland, Finland etc.).
Alternatives
* One of the neutral voters remarked that there is another alternative, which does not have most of the problems mentioned by the opponents, these are the so called Rei-artur maps.
I hope I have managed to give a fair summary of the arguments given, and that this will help to take the discussion forward. Of course feel free to read the original comments given in the closed poll above for a more detailed account, and the discussion of some topics that are mere mentioned in this summary. Arnoutf 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of map poll

message: Please note that this is a summary of the comments made by all sides. The number of arguments listed here has not relation whatsoever to the tally of the votes, and is merely provided to give an overview of the differences in opinion voiced with the votes.
New maps or old
* Obviously all supporters of the new maps, support a change of map style. It should however be noted that  many of the supporters of the old style or the neutral option would support new maps with a higher level of detail. Those editors tended to disagree with several of the choices made in the development of the David Liuzzo maps, which maps were the specific focus of the poll. These opponents indicated they might support new maps if (some) adjustments were made.
Conceptual 
* Several supporters of the EU-highlighted maps argumented for the visibly identifiable EU status, in particular for its members; several voters from the three other sections expressed disagreement.
* Opponents mention that while the European continent centricity may work for most countries, a few boundary countries are not presented with a good reference to their region (e.g. the map of Greece, shows the close neighbours of Cyprus not as well depicted as far off Iceland). (This also addresses usability)
Aesthetic
* Many supporters of the new format dislike the plain grey-green; several supporters of the old format dislike the new color scheme.
Usability
* Several supporters of the new maps mention the higher level of detail is an improvement, several opponents agree a better detail level is an improvement, although some opponents mention that the level of detail in the David Liuzzo maps is too specific for the function of the maps, and makes location actually more difficult. The schematic approach of the old maps is favoured by some opponents
* Opponents comment that in the new maps, small countries are difficult to find, and a world locator is not present. (Note: This is adjusted in the second version of the maps - editorial remark by Arnoutf)
Wiki consistency
* Opponents argue that the old maps have become typical of Wiki style and should not be changed.
* Opponents argue that consistency all over Wikipedia is that important, we should only change after maps for each country of the world would be available. (Note: This is not to be expected in a near future - editorial remark by SomeHuman)  
* Supporters state both the arguments above would interfere with any innovation in any wiki.
Technical issues
* The current copyright with which the maps were uploaded is not a full release to the public domain. There seems to be agreement that this needs to be changed before the new maps can be adopted. (Note: The maps not highlighting the EU have a new copyright licence since February 2. Licence open for discussion - editorial remark by SomeHuman)
* A few opponents mention that the new maps are in PNG (bitmap) format, while for this type of type of graphics the SVG (vector) format is preferable. (Note that the current locator maps are also in PNG format - editorial comment Arnoutf)
* A few opponents state that the new maps are drawn using the Mercator projection which distorts northern countries (Iceland, Finland etc.).
Alternatives
* One of the neutral voters remarked that there is another alternative, which does not have most of the problems mentioned by the opponents, these are the so called Rei-artur maps.
I hope I have managed to give a fair summary of the arguments given, and that this will help to take the discussion forward. Of course feel free to read the original comments given in the closed poll above for a more detailed account, and the discussion of some topics that are mere mentioned in this summary. Arnoutf 18:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of arguments

message: Im writing this bold so that you won't overlook it: Instead of discussing my maps to death it would have been nice if ANYBODY informed me, the Creator of that new maps about this...well extremely long discussion which developed here Nevertheless: With the beginning of 2007 there are two series available: Europe location XXX and EU location XXX. The new EU location series still contains the EU marking, the other one doesn't. So every Wikipedia may make its own choice between the two. Further there is finally a world map on both and the issue of the slightly wrong border around the Ural River area has been corrected.
File:Europe location GER.png|Europe location series
File:EU location GER.png|EU location series
File:Europe location MLT.png|Europe loc for small states
File:EU location MLT.png|EU loc for small states.
:: It is interesting to see that these maps 
*are really welcomed on wikipedias which are written in languages of the newer EU countries; 
*generally acceppted on wikipedias in languages of older EU members (which were founders of the EC) with a more-or less positive attitude towards Europe and the EU 
and 
*completely rejected and discussed to death on more international wikis such as the Spanish or well...my favorite...the english wikipedia. (But at top of that the english wikipedia reminds me of that lovely Great Britain, with its negative attitude towards Europe; not taking part in the Euro, people strictly separating GB and 'the continent' in conversations...)
It's also very funny to read that demands for the creation of corresponding maps for the rest of the world completely ignoring that I did that damn Europe thing voluntarily spending my personal free time on it and I wanted to see my continent represented in an optical better form than before.
Further it was also interesting that there were many varities of misuse in combination with that maps. Some users created maps violating the common design of the series. (The first Europe location TUR.png showed Tukey and the European Union which (if you followed the logic of the other ~20-25 EU images) implied Tukey belonging to Europe and the EU - oO - which is of course just wrong.) Seems that some people want to have Turkey as part of Europe and the EU at all costs. Another user even made a socket puppet "DLiuzzo" on commons pretending to be me to cause some problems on the maps other users had created for the caucasian countries. (btw. a very good solution to delete the grey Europe marking on that the maps for caucasian countries since their status in unclear). That traitor even misused my insignia and damaged my reputation with that "DLiuzzo" socket puppet.
So before I quit any further activity regarding maps on the English wikipedia you are requested to either take that maps or to leave it. But don't mix anything up. My next bigger Europe series and the coming North-Africa/Asia (East Mediterranean) will not be published on commons anymore, but on the wikipedias that want to use and appreciate them. Perhaps I'll come over from time to time to see that good old grey/green pixelthingies. I must admit that they have really some kind of nostalgic charm. --David Liuzzo 18:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's rather strange that we would have to warn you about a discussion that you yourself started. -- Eugène van der Pijll 20:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  See below for some serious effort to get away from this stalemate. Arnoutf 11:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creator's comment on the whole long lasting discussion/New maps with and without EU-marking available

message: Some "country" articles are about geographical regions. According to our NPOV rules this means that the history must give appropriate weight to all the people who have lived in the region.
Other "country" articles are about contemporary Nation States which are dominated by a particular racial group. Their history sections are the history of the dominant race. The history of other races ("aboriginals") is relegated to a subsidiary article.
In the latter case, how does our template treat the non-dominant race? Fourtildas 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A country is defined by its government, not its race. --Golbez 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And when it's dominant race, whether majority or minority, defines its government? Think apartheid... Rarelibra 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on South Africa is about South Africa - its government, its people, etc. I don't understand what anyone is getting at here. Should the article on South Africa have (before Apartheid ended) focused only on the whites, with a separate article for the blacks? Or what? Establish what you and fourtildas are talking about, please. --Golbez 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am responding merely in defense of Fourtildas said compared to your response. How can you possibly state such a thing... "a country is defined by its government". So you are stating that, since I am American, that I am defined by my GOVERNMENT? That the US is defined by a bunch of cowboys throwing the war machine around everywhere? I THINK NOT. Nor did the South African government - especially when they were all white - ever 'define' the country. Unless you think that apartheid was a 'fair definition'. Trouble is, statements like yours lead to only a few things... prejudice, racism, and conflict. I think Fourtildas is merely trying to open up the articles to a broader spectrum of definition and understanding. So along the lines of your 'definition', do you think that if, say, the Hutus were to eliminate all of the Tutsis, that the new Hutu government would 'define' the country? Or hey - even better - do you think a puppet government in Iraq will now 'define' the country? I HOPE not. I don't wish to continue this - it seems illogical to even discuss. Rarelibra 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A government is the single defining aspect of a country, yes. If there were two distinct but equal governments in a region... then there would be two countries. --Golbez 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  A) one</I> American isn't America (or rather the USA) and such isn't defined by his government. B) the members of the currently acting administration aren't the</I> government of a country. Lars T. 13:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what provision has been made for new yet still unrecognised countries that have de-facto statehood and are awaiting international recognition and/or the sovreignty is under dispute, countries such as abkhazia or south ossetia and transnistria. Buffadren 15:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a "Country"? 

message: History of the Netherlands is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of the Netherlands]]

message: Shouldn't the infobox here say "Nederland/The Netherlands" and not "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'm just wondering because Netherlands (nl:Nederland) is not the same as the Kingdom of the Netherlands (nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden), it is only the European part. —MC 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Native name/long name of the Netherlands

message: Hi,
just wanted to inform you that this project has a new (actually, ressurected) child, i.e. WikiProject Belgium!
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Belgium 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Major code cleanup request ?AzaToth 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major code cleanup request 

message: Currently this discussion pertaining to the kinds of templates found at the foot of articles on countries only has three voices – please add some more so any semblance of a consensus might emerge. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Europe#This and similar templates' names]] 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: A short note of introduction; I recently found this effort which corresponds well with my interests and academic/professional backgrounds.  I look forward to contibuting to the project's efforts - I have an extensive background on European topics with knowledge of the Americas and Southeast Asia as well.  Look forward to working with you and joining the debates below.  Internazionale 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greetings 

message: Hi everyone. I joined this project because I'm interested in improving all  Uruguay-related articles.Wesborland 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Wesborland|Wesborland]] here 

message: Hi, why is only GDP PPP added in the country templates. There is good reason to omit nominal GDP figures. Thus I have taken the liberty of adding the nominal figures to the country templates. I will then start adding nominal GDP figures. Please do, however, check my edits and let me know any suggestions you might have. Thank you. Best Regards, SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already implemented the changes for Germany, Japan and the United States. Adding nominal GDP figure is necceassary to provide our reader with the best info possible. Stating that Japan is the world's fith largest economy is misleading as it is also the world's second largest economy. SignaturebrendelNow under review! 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP nominal 

message: I have started work on new maps for the Middle East based on the new European ones, and I will post them on here when done... only problem is I don't know whether I should post the Mideast as a whole or make a separate, smaller map for GCC countries considering the small size of Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait and how they would be clearer if we had a separate one... Thoughts? --Amjra 10:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should hold off (on posting them) until the Europe maps debate is settled above.  Ideally we would like to have similar looking maps for every country in the world.  MJCdetroit 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New maps for Middle East 

message: This may have come up before and if so my apologies. I was looking at the Australia article to find the legal weights & measures used in the country, are they metric or imperial? After looking at a few others, Canada, US, and the UK, I found that it is not included in any of these. I did check the CIA Factbook but couldn't see it there either. Surely the information could be included in the infobox with the use of a single line.
The hard to find information concerns the GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal). It lists them in $ but finding out what sort is not the easiest thing. First you need to click on the ranking to go to "List of countries by GDP" to find out that PPP is in "internaltional dollars" but of course "nominal" is in "US dollars". Would it not be a better idea to use the <ref> tag to show what is what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the National Measurement Institute of the Austrilian government, 1988 was the last year of legal general use of imperial units .  However, I am sure that just like the US, UK, and Canada, in everyday life there is probably somewhat of a metric/imperial mix used.  You may find this article helpful: Metrication in Australia.  I don't really think that measurement systems should be included in the infobox. As all but three countries require "legal" use of the metric system anyway and it's difficult to know/measure how much the imperial system is used in the metric countries.  Hope that helps with the measurement part of your question.  —MJCdetroit 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks that did help. And while while the information probably shouldn't go in the infobox should there not be something in the article about a country (and not just Australia) that indicates if they are metric. I don't think that the series "Metrication in country" is linked to from the country articles. At the same time I must admit that I'm not that excited about the subject to try and do it myself. The question has to do with what figures are used first in the infoboxes for airports because a lot of metric based countries use feet to measure elevations at airports. By the way, besides the US what are the other two countries that are still Imperial? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Burma and Liberia.  MJCdetroit 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing and hard to find information in the infobox

message: How come there are two separated articles about Taiwan(Republic of China), while there is only one article about South Korea(Republic of Korea)?--68.98.154.196 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about Taiwan

message: Thought I'd draw your attention to this open bounty of $25 for any country article elevated to FA status. If anyone wants to add to my offer, feel free. Equally if anyone wants to claim said bounty for Wikipedia, get to it! Might want to let me know when it happens, too. Soo 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article bounty 

message: The last few weeks I noticed a boom in templates added at the back of articles. For example in the Netherlands article the following were added: Geographic Location (8-way); Countries of Europe; North Sea; EU countries; NATO; Germanic Europe. Although some of them maybe usefull I think wwe should not overdo this. (Especially the Geographic Location template is an ugly space consuming thing). Perhaps we should discuss here (in a more or less neutral and centralised place) what kind of templates we would like to see for every country (as few as possible). If this is added to the countries (with a decent remark at the talk page) I think the editors of the countries themselves should decide whether they want to add additional templates. Arnoutf 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template Boom 

message: Hi all,
: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 25#Category:Countries and its subcategories
: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 25#Category:Countries by international organization
Hopefully either or both these of interest – please contribute!  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfDs hopefully of interest 

message: The Wikiproject countries states "The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like."
Is it necessary that only bordering countries is used and can neighbouring countries be also used. Is there any restriction in using neighbouring countries(The nations that are so close but did not border it) .
Chanakyathegreat 08:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? Neighbours like Canada through the US is with Mexico?? Or do you mean more like UK-France through the Canal; or even something like France-Netherlands through a smalle country Belgium? Anyway I think the "the like" gives plenty of room. Arnoutf 10:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that is fairly rare case; to specific to make generic rules about, so I guess it would fall under the the like clause... Arnoutf 08:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bordering/Neighbouring 

message: I feel that the country articles place too much weight on economics compared to other aspects of a country.
I suggest that 'health' and 'education' sections be added to each country page, and if this makes the article too big shortening the often lengthy econmoics sections. Damburger 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue focus on economics 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards