Talk:List of countries and outlying territories by total area/Archive 4

message: Is the information for columbia accurate? It is listed as number 26, with 1,138,914, while the country at number 25, South Africa, is listed with 1,221,037. Would Columbia not be listed as number 20? could someone pleas clarify this for me? Ono (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia 

message: I have been in lurk mode here for a while, but am happy to see the latest EU compromise seems to have obtained.  Anyway, I deleted the Earth entry (more of a science entry than a political entry, no?) and changed the "Land" entry to the title World, which more appropriately fits the political nature of this list I think. Malnova (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Earth/World

message: The UN report at the end gives the area of India as 3,287,763 sq km, the other reference to the Census of India was broken. As far as the EU is concerned, I am not disputing its inclusion, but why is it the sui genesis ? That needs a citation for sure. Unless one can provide it soon the tag is going to go back on. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN stats 

message: I tried to add the UK Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia) to the list, but they were removed because they're not in the UN DYB.  I assume this is because the SBAs have no permanent population.  Fair enough - I hadn't realised that this list was restricted that.
However, the entry for Cyprus in the list includes these territories, with an area of 9251 km2.  Whereas the CIA World Factbook states that the area of Cyprus excluding Akrotiri & Dhekelia is 9250 km2.  The SBAs are considerably more than 1km2 in area.  So who's right, the UN or the CIA???  (My guess is that the World Factbook is wrong, but I don't know for sure.)  Bazonka (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area of Cyprus 

message: Why are the articles involving of countries, such as lists and such, include territories that are not fully independent. I think we should get rid of those territories and place them in another article. And also: "What is the point of having a country list if it includes territories that are not independent?".Albertal (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This list more or less matches List of countries except where the official figure includes another territory. --Polaron | Talk 13:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding territories that are not fully independent 

message: Why is'nt Norway's Spitsbergen and other Islands included in the total of Norway ? I find it silly that Svalbard ( spitsbergen ) has it's own mention... And should'nt ocean areas / terretotial waters be included in the total too ? Mortyman (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Svalbard and Jan Mayen (which are two separate integral overseas areas, by the way) are part of the Kingdom of Norway and should be included in the number. -- Nidator T / C 10:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This encyclopedia entry generally reports what the cited third-party supporting source says. That source separates Norway proper from (see footnotes 19, 80, and 81 therein -- particularly 81).  Incidentally, I've just corrected the Norway figure in the article to correspond with the figure in that cited third-party supporting source. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway

message: is there any source in which countries are ranked by total territory including sea?--Esteban Barahona (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  total area does not include sea territory? 

message: Here it says taht Spain is the 6th largest country in Europe, but that s not truth, because is the 4th one, after Russia (the europe territory), Ucraine and France. Please, check it.
:If you consider Russia a European country, you have to consider Kazakhstan and Turkey, which are located partly in Europe as well, European countries, and both countries are larger than Spain. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But is the part of their territory in Europe larger than Spain?  When I read "6th largest country in Europe" I think about the amount of land on the continent, not "6th largest country among countries with any amount of territory in Europe".LedRush (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The European part of Kazakhstan is not exactly defined, so it is rather difficult to speak about that. Belgian man (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is for Russia?  That's odd.  Also, I'd imagine that the number for Turkey would be easy to come up with, and that number would clearly put it way down on the list.  Having said this, I really don't have a strong opinion on this at all...just trying to make an argument for our Spanish friend who obviously does care.LedRush (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As you maybe saw in my reaction I am lacking any strong opinion on this ranking of European countries as well. You are right about Russia. I think he is right: It is the fourth one if we only consider the European parts of the countries. Belgian man (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm no geographer, but I see that the Europe article says that Europe is generally divided from Asia to its east by the water divide of the Ural Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian Sea, and by the Caucasus Mountains to the southeast, citing Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia.  Encarta shows that on this map.  The Europe article also says that Kazakhstan is physiographically considered a transcontinental country in Central Asia (UN region) and Eastern Europe, with European territory west of the Ural Mountains and both the Ural and Emba rivers. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that map is correct, spain is clearly larger than the european section of Kazakhstan.  I guess the only question is if the "____ largest European country" includes only the European part of the country or the entire area of any country with any land in Europe.  I suspect it's the former, but don't really know.LedRush (talk) 03:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, this is about which ranking should be used. I think we should only consider the area of the European part in this particular ranking. In the same way, I don't think anybody would rank Spain as the "23rd largest country in Africa", just because it has territories on that continent. At least, both rankings should be mentioned. Mbuergo (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spain

message: Considering there seems to be progress being made here, I'm not going to protect the article. Instead, the next user to revert will be blocked for 24 hours for revert warring. Jennavecia (Talk) 18:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war over this

message: Okay, can someone clear up the description on this, It says for Brazil, that it's the largest country in the southern hemisphere, but Australia says the same thing; Largest country "wholly" in the Southern Hemisphere.  I assumed that it means not landlocked or bordered by another country, because it could both be saying that it's the only country fully in the southern hemisphere with the way that it's written.  Kyprosサマ (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The equator runs through northern Brazil, so Brazil is partly in the northern hemisphere and partly in the southern hemisphere. Australia, being completely below the equator, is wholly in the southern hemisphere. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, yes.  Is Brazil still larger then Australia in size -after- the portions of the counter north of the equator have been excluded? Kyprosサマ (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If my memory serves correctly, only about 1% of Brazil is north of the equator.  The 99% in the southern hemisphere is still larger than Australia. Bazonka (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brazil & Australia

message: Switzerland's area "excludes state forests and communanzas (7.15km2)".  What does that mean?  Surely these are just as much part of Switzerland as the rest of it - it's not like they're some questionable overseas territory.  I propose that this distinction is removed, and the 7.15km2 added to Switzerland's total.  Any thoughts, explanations or suggestions? Bazonka (talk) 11:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what it means either, you have my support. Belgian man (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand it either, but the fact is that this is what the cited supporting source says (see footnote number 86 therein). The article reports information from the cited supporting source—except, probably, in those parts of the article where unsupported changes to that information have been made by WP editors. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've altered Switzerland's details and added a comment about the difference with the UN source.  (It seems inexplicable to exclude these areas.)  Bazonka (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The table used as a supporting source is from the 2006 UN Demographic yearbook, which is based on demographic analysis of census data. My guess is that the census in Switzerland was not conducted in "state forests and communanzas", that the census results report was footnoted with that information, that the area figure reported excluded those areas and was so footnoted, and that the UN picked up the info reported in the census results. I see that section I(1.7) of the UN Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses says "The census should cover a precisely defined territory (for example, the entire country or a well-delimited part of it).", and I guess this comes from efforts to delimit well the part of the country which the census covered. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that could be it.  So for population purposes, it makes sense to exclude these areas; but for area purposes it doesn't. Bazonka (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switzerland 

message: This article has recently had several edits related to China. Without going into the gory details (it's too late at night in my timezone for me to do that), I want to air a concern that this article is on a slippery slope into WP:POV-land.  The article currently says (this may have changed by the time you read this):
3 / 4 (disputed)	People's Republic of China	9,598,0941 9,640,8212	6.4%6.5%	Largest all-Asian country, second largest Asian country (after Asian part of Russia). Total of separate UN figures for mainland China (9,596,961) and the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong (1,104 km²) and Macau (29 km²). Both values exclude the island of Taiwan and other ROC-administrated territories. 1 Excludes other disputed territories. 2 Includes PRC-administered area (Aksai Chin and Trans-Karakoram Tract, both territories claimed by India but exclude Arunachal Pradesh which is administered by India but claimed by the PRC). The ROC-administrated island of Taiwan is not included.
The table footnote says:
:Source, unless otherwise specifed:
::
The cited supporting source puts the area of China at 9,596,961 km², with a footnote saying that this does not include the Hong Kong and Macao SARs. For encyclopedic purposes, that seems good enough for me.  Editorial license might roll in the SAR areas (9,596,961 +1,104 + 29 = 9,598,094), and that is one figure which the article uses. The other China figure in the article is 9,640,821, includes  a couple of disputed areas (with area figures from who knows what source) and specifically disclaims that Taiwan is not included. (regarding Taiwan, there has historically been some dispute regarding whether or not it is a part of the PRC)
At a glance, I see somewhat similar situations, looking to be POV-driven, with Pakistan, Sweden, Syria, Taiwan, and perhaps other entries.
My sense is that this article is on a slippery slope into POV-land. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slippery slope 

message: Text for Sweden says 7th largest in Europe, but is higher on list than Spain for which text says is 6th largest.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.23.129 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The numbers for Sweden include about 81,000 km2 of sea water. I'm pretty confident national sea territory is not included in most of other countries' figures. How about reducing Sweden to 450,295 km2 in accordance with the very reliable source supplied from the Swedish Central Bureau of Statistics. Skrofler (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The source named in the table footnote—the source used for most of the countries in this list—gives the area as 450,295 km, apparently not having added in the area of the water between the coastline and the territorial border. I don't see the sense in not using that source and that figure. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've corrected the area of Sweden now to exclude national sea territory. Skrofler (talk) 07:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Sweden vs. Spain 

message: Why does the USA come first in the rank order if it's disputed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.35.47 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean first?  China's size is disputed which either makes it slightly larger or slightly smaller than USA depending on which figure you use.  Therefore both China and USA are ranked as 3rd or 4th in the list.  (PS Please place new comments at the bottom of this page (I've moved this down), and sign your comments with four tildes.) Bazonka (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: USA and China

message: There's a lot of different IP's (probably the same user) changing the info on Timor to an incorrect/typo source. Can we get this article locked down to only longtime editors? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who keeps reverting to the edit against consensus is User:Domaleixo, and he has been doing the exact type of practice on the Equatorial Guinea and Portuguese language articles (for over a month now). Since he never logged on and the IP addresses changed, he could never be blocked (IPs that start with 189*, 200*, and 201* such as 189.30.82.187, 201.3.254.235, 200.101.251.185 are all his).  I finally got those 2 articles semi-protected to prevent IPs from editing, so that's why he finally started to use his User:Domaleixo account again which got him blocked pretty quickly. I haven't been actively editing this article, but I would highly recommend that you request this article to be semi-protected for a while to prevent the persistent edit warring. Kman543210 (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But do we really find it is no problem two have two different figures for East Timor? The East Timor article itself uses "Domaleixo's" figure... Belgian man (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Domaleixo who changed that figure. Bazonka (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Here's yet another figure from the East Timor government website: 14,604km² as the sum of the areas of the country's districts .  However, this figure excludes the area of the exclaved district of Oecussi.  Wikipedia gives the area of Oecussi as 815km² - this gives a total area of 15,419km² - much nearer to the UN figure than the one that the IP user insists is correct. Bazonka (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: A sockpuppet report has already been filed for the user that continues to make changes to the East Timor area: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Domaleixo. It hasn't been worked yet by an administrator. Kman543210 (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timor 

message: I have integrated the French Overseas Departments into one entry, but I thought I'd better write this for info: 
*this version uses official French government statistics per INSEE.
*This version, meanwhile, simply sums the numbers already found in this article.
The figures for St. Barthélemy and St. Martin are taken from their respective articles, but INSEE gives exactly the same numbers.  I have added both to the list, and subtracted their areas from the values used for Guadeloupe and for France as appropriate in my France entry.  The INSEE list is dated 2006, and so was written before the two collectivities were separated from Guadeloupe. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French DOMs 

message: I don't understand why these figures aren't corrected. I changed it a few times but people keep reverting it back.
It's quite simple really. The figures should be:
| 7 |  India  3,166,41413,300,09723,065,02731 Includes Indian administered Jammu & Kashmir (101,387 km²).2 Includes Pakistani administered Northern Areas (72,520 km²) and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (13,297 km²). Also includes Chinese administered Aksai Chin (42,685 km²) and Trans-Karakoram Tract (5,181 km²).3 Excludes disputed territories of Jammu & Kashmir.
| 34 |  Pakistan 881,9131983,3002796,09631 Includes Pakistani administered Northern Areas (72,520 km²) and Azad Jammu & Kashmir (13,297 km²).2 Includes Indian administered Jammu & Kashmir (101,387 km²). Does not include disputed territories of Junagadh & Manavadar (10,607 km²).3 Excludes all disputed territories.
:What are your sources for these figures? Note that the list uses the official UN data for nearly all entries. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Pakistan, India and disputed territories''' 

message: Nominally, it is a unitary state, so I thought I'd add it in :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.4.55 (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  China is the largest unitary state, no?