Talk:List of countries/Archive 1

message: For the inclusion of sovereign states, see talk:list of sovereign states and for the inclusion of dependent territories the talk:list of dependent territories. We do not need a double discussion. So if a country is deleted from on of the other lists, this list follows.
This list includes the native names. I plan to delete these, since these are included in the list of sovereign states. Before I do that, I wait three days (1st of may I will start), to hear arguments. Electionworld 22:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Deletion completed. Electionworld 17:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

text: The definition by which “country” is determined on this page is amazingly ridiculous. For the sake of consistency, shouldn’t every entity on the planet that currently has a secessionist movement be listed as a country? Therefore, for example, the seven individuals in Patterson, New Jersey who promote the secession of New Jersey from the United States should be listed as a “country.”  The three people in Bonn who want their favorite drinking establishment to be recognized as a “country” so German alcohol tax can be avoided… shouldn’t they be recognized as a “country”? 
This page is a politically correct attempt to placate and appease any and all. Don’t stop now 1 Increase the list by widening the net!
=== Non-contiguous parts of countries ===
Does anyone know why most international lists of countries list overseas departments of France as seperate entities, but don't list Alaska and Hawaii?
The overseas departments of France are not listed.  France has 4 overseas departments that are fully incorperated into the state just like Alaska or Hawaii.  France also has 5 overseas territories that are basicly indepependent except for foreign policy like Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands.  It's explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_departments_and_territories
Is there some kind of rule of thumb that federal countries can be non-contiguous, whereas non-contiguous parts of unitary states are regarded as separate territories?
Ben Arnold 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, the list of countries by continent. Ben Arnold 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: We should probably simply wait for meta:Wikidata for stuff like this. Oh, am I looking forward to it... ^_^ —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The proper place to discuss this would be Template talk:Infobox Country -- (Shocktm | Talk  | contribs.) 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This should not strictly be the way it is, as any good dictionary will include truly foreign words which are commonly used in English.  In such case, the words are italicized in the dictionary.  I just checked, however, and "de facto" and "de jure" are not italicized in my dictionary, so I'll revert back. Lexicon (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussions

message: Does anyone know why most international lists of countries list overseas departments of France as seperate entities, but don't list Alaska and Hawaii?
The overseas departments of France are not listed.  France has 4 overseas departments that are fully incorperated into the state just like Alaska or Hawaii.  France also has 5 overseas territories that are basicly indepependent except for foreign policy like Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands.  It's explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_overseas_departments_and_territories
Is there some kind of rule of thumb that federal countries can be non-contiguous, whereas non-contiguous parts of unitary states are regarded as separate territories?
Ben Arnold 00:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-contiguous parts of countries 

message: Does something like this already exsists?(Anon)
:Yes, the list of countries by continent. Ben Arnold 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  list per continent 

message: I think that it would be very useful to set-up a country listing, downloadable in some format (CVS, XML, Excel), that holds some additional information for each country, such as:
   - international short name - English (e.g. Germany)
   - international long name - English (e.g. Federal Republic of Germany)
   - international short name - French (e.g. Allemagne)
   - international long name - French (e.g. Républic Fédérale de l'Allemagne)
   - international name - .... other languages (--> perhaps the six official UN languages; thus Spanish, Chinese, Russian, Arabic) 
   - local short name (e.g. Deutschland)
   - local long name (e.g. Bundesrepublik Deutschland)
   - official languages (e.g. German; for Switzerland: German, French, Italian) 
   - Capital (e.g. Berlin) (local and international form)
   - eventually coordinates  for drawing a rectangle that encompasses the country
Some of the information exists. But not all. With the help of all these Wikipedia users around the world it should be fairly easy to set-up such a list. There are some UN lists too (UN Statistical Divison, UN Cartographic Section, UNTERM), but none of them includes all proposed fields. A public "database" of this information would really be a great thing. Ok, there are some political sensitive issues to be aware of, but the list below shows that it is nevertheless possible to come up with something (fairly) complete. 
Luftikus143 13:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably simply wait for meta:Wikidata for stuff like this. Oh, am I looking forward to it... ^_^ —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Countries with additional parameters 

message: I hereby suggest that the prefix for airplane's registration-numbers in the country (eg. "LN" for Norway) - perhaps along with the nationa-emblem (eg. a circle with concentric red, white and blue circles for the USA), should be added in the Infobox.
I also suggest that the prefix used in the countries Amateur-Radio (HAM) call-signs to be added (eg. for Norway (AFAIK) LA, LB, LC and LØ (zero) - though I think all but LA and perhaps LØ are obsolete.  We used to have LA for full, LB for limited and LC for technical license, and LØ used on Norwgian possessions(?) ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.248.29.232 (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper place to discuss this would be Template talk:Infobox Country -- (Shocktm | Talk  | contribs.) 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airplane registration-prefix and Amateur-Radio (HAM) prefix 

message: MOS states that 'If looking for a good rule of thumb, do not italicize words that appear in an English language dictionary.' This includes terms such as 'de facto' and 'de jure'.
Pædia 22:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This should not strictly be the way it is, as any good dictionary will include truly foreign words which are commonly used in English.  In such case, the words are italicized in the dictionary.  I just checked, however, and "de facto" and "de jure" are not italicized in my dictionary, so I'll revert back. Lexicon (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Foreign terms

message: The name "Czechia" was announced by the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 1993 for use as the short form title of the Czech Republic.  While it has not been so caught on in English usage, as it has already been stated in para 2 of the list that "The names are given in English and include both the short official names (e.g. Afghanistan) and the (longer) official name (e.g. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan). The listing of any name in this article is not meant to imply an official position in any naming dispute.", no matter you like it or not, it's still much appropriate to put "Czechia" on the list as the official short form title of Czech Republic, just like Belarus vis-á-vis Byelorussia and Côte d'Ivoire vis-á-vis Ivory Coast. DD Ting 03:10, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Let's promote the use of "Czechia" as a respect to the country and its people. DD Ting 03:21, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:None of the official sites of the Czech government, Czech president and the Czech parliament, not even the Czech Ministry of foreign affairs uses Czechia, so it shouldn't be used as the short official name, I placed Czechia between brackets. Electionworld 08:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to "promote" anything. We're here to write encyclopaedic entries, not push barrows. I have Czech relatives and was in the country 2 years ago, and had never heard of this term until today. Orderinchaos78 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czechia/Czech Republic 

message: Generally good list but I don't support the inclusion of the french DOMs. They are equal in status to the Metropolitan departments and as much a part of France as Hawaii is of the USA or Tasmania of Australia, and neither of those are on this list. - Randwicked 09:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose The overseas DOM's are a part of France, just like Alaska and Hawai'i are parts of the United States, regardless of their ethnic histories, or your understanding of international law. If/when there are new dependencies (as with Aruba and Netherland Antilles), the list should be updated accordingly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 16:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Justin on this, they are just non-connected extensions of the French Republic, period. Saint-Barthélémy and Saint-Martin should, of course, be included in the future. —Nightstallion (?) 15:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French overseas departments and collectivities 

message: To the best of my knowledge and from what I learned from the discussion in the List of sovereign states, I was given the impression that Sealand meets all criteria as a state as like other de facto independent states (e.g. Abkhazia).  It has defined territory (550 sq m) and even territial waters (12nm).  It has a functional government.  It has a running economy (HavenCo) and the staff working there and the Bate's family constitute permanent population of the state.  It is out of the jurisdiction of any other sovereign states (e.g. UK).  While it's an artifical island, the state was established long before the promulgation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982 which thus has no legal effect on it.  When the principality declared in 1967, it was outside the UK's territorial waters (3nm, not 12nm which was declared by the UK government in later years).  While no sovereign states have ever established diplomatic relations with Sealand, the 1978 incident had indeed constituted de facto recognition of Sealand by Germany.  So Sealand has already met the criteria of a state.  As it is not recognized by any sovereign states in the world, it is appropriate to classify Sealand as de facto independent state. DD Ting 04:07, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
:This discussion we had earlier on Talk:List_of_unrecognized_countries. There was even a poll. The discussion was clear and according to that result I deleted Sealand again. Electionworld 08:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sealand 

message: And by the way "Taiwan" is a conventional rather than official short form.  — Instantnood 15:58, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
Jiang deleted the sentence de facto sovereign state at Taiwan. Could he please argue why Taiwan should not considered to be a de facto sovereign state. Electionworld 11:12, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: De facto sovereign states receive no recognition. the ROC receives recognition from 25 states. Where do we draw the line? Since the original prompt set the number of de facto states at 6, i stated "2 or fewer" to include Northern Cyprus since it is a puppet state.--Jiang 11:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Why not? :-) — Instantnood 09:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
There is no doubt that nowadays the ROC government is commonly regarded as Taiwan authorities instead of the government of China.  However, legally speaking the ROC government has never formally denounced its claim over its former territories including Mainland China and Outer Mongolia.  It's also worth noting that the ROC government has been in existence (without interruption) since 1912 when it was established in Nanjing, China, and among the states which still maintain diplomatic relations with ROC, some (e.g. Honduras, Paraguay) had established such relationship before the ROC government moved to Taiwan in 1949.  For Holy See, it treats its diplomatic relation with ROC as with "China" as noted from its official website.  So it is not factually wrong to put "China (ROC)" side-by-side with "China (PRC)" on the list.  But to be accustomed to conventional wisdom, I think it's better maintaining status quo (i.e. "Taiwan (ROC") with a note at "China (PRC)" (i.e. "(see also Taiwan (ROC))"). DD Ting 02:57, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Let's be consequent. Generally in Wikipedia the entries regarding the (politics of etc. the ) state are named Republic of China etc.. Taiwan is used for the island or a redirect follows. Electionworld 08:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The present Chen Shui-bian's administration in ROC announced recently that all ROC government websites (e.g. President's Office and Government Information Office) would add '(Taiwan)' after the official titile 'Reoublic of China' in order to distinguish ROC from PRC.  So to certain extent 'Taiwan' has been the official abbreviation of ROC, at least under the present term of government. DD Ting 01:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
====Further Taiwan/ROC====
Yesterday I severely shortened the essay after the Taiwan entry.  This is a simple list and we should avoid having huge paragraph long essays about political status on any country/territory here.  We need one link here to the issue with the PRC here, not a paragraph summary of all PRC/ROC territorial disputes. Also, I thought we agreed to not have a second "China" line under C, instead a see also after the PRC entry. Nobody is going to look for Taiwan (as a country) under China. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not for you or I to decide if there is anybody looking for Taiwan under section C. The ROC establishes diplomatic relations with other countries as China (e.g. Vatican , ). The previous way of presenting - "(see also Taiwan (ROC))" on the line of the PRC entry  - is far from satisfactory, for the ROC is not, and has never part of the PRC. It should be, IMHO, separately listed. — Instantnood 18:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
*This list is not a dab page.  There is no Burma, no Kampuchea, etc.  One country, one entry.  You're really reaching. Your link is neither here nor there. In diplomatic writings between ambassadors (not funeral notices), the Vatican switches between the full name ROC or uses Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 20:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: By doing so we'll effectively be disregarding the actual reality that the ROC is, at most time, referred to as Taiwan. That's the name most people know about it. While I believe many articles on the ROC should be titled " in/of the Republic of China ", I agree with the opinion that most readers would look for it by its common name, and therefore it should be listed under #T. — Instantnood 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "1992 consensus" (九二共識) is only one interpretation of the current political status involving the PRC and the ROC. Many people (e.g. pan-green folks) do not agree to it. Who is to say this is the "most neutral" point of view? (NPOV means an appropriate representation of all points of view, not the representation of only the "most neutral" point of view, which really, does not exist.) As the country names "China" and "Taiwan" are the most commonly understandable and used short names (not official names) of the PRC and the ROC, I do not see a problem using them in pages like this one. Chanheigeorge 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan/Republic of China 

message: Yesterday I severely shortened the essay after the Taiwan entry.  This is a simple list and we should avoid having huge paragraph long essays about political status on any country/territory here.  We need one link here to the issue with the PRC here, not a paragraph summary of all PRC/ROC territorial disputes. Also, I thought we agreed to not have a second "China" line under C, instead a see also after the PRC entry. Nobody is going to look for Taiwan (as a country) under China. SchmuckyTheCat 18:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not for you or I to decide if there is anybody looking for Taiwan under section C. The ROC establishes diplomatic relations with other countries as China (e.g. Vatican , ). The previous way of presenting - "(see also Taiwan (ROC))" on the line of the PRC entry  - is far from satisfactory, for the ROC is not, and has never part of the PRC. It should be, IMHO, separately listed. — Instantnood 18:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
*This list is not a dab page.  There is no Burma, no Kampuchea, etc.  One country, one entry.  You're really reaching. Your link is neither here nor there. In diplomatic writings between ambassadors (not funeral notices), the Vatican switches between the full name ROC or uses Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 20:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: By doing so we'll effectively be disregarding the actual reality that the ROC is, at most time, referred to as Taiwan. That's the name most people know about it. While I believe many articles on the ROC should be titled " in/of the Republic of China ", I agree with the opinion that most readers would look for it by its common name, and therefore it should be listed under #T. — Instantnood 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "1992 consensus" (九二共識) is only one interpretation of the current political status involving the PRC and the ROC. Many people (e.g. pan-green folks) do not agree to it. Who is to say this is the "most neutral" point of view? (NPOV means an appropriate representation of all points of view, not the representation of only the "most neutral" point of view, which really, does not exist.) As the country names "China" and "Taiwan" are the most commonly understandable and used short names (not official names) of the PRC and the ROC, I do not see a problem using them in pages like this one. Chanheigeorge 01:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Taiwan/ROC

message: Can anyone advise whether the extra-territorial properties as agreed in the 1929 Lateran Treaty come under the jurisdiction (though not sovereign) of the Holy See or the Vatican City? DD Ting 16:42, 13 Aug 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Lateran Treaties the come under the jurisdiction of the Holy See, not the Vatican City. Gugganij 23:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vatican City/Holy See 

message: The list should be linked to U.S. Virgin Islands instead of Virgin Islands. — Instantnood 19:24, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
:see changes. Electionworld 06:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  — Instantnood 12:18, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Can we use the same ordering for both parts of the Virgin Islands. Either list them as British Virgin Islands and U.S. Virgin Islands or as Virgin Islands, British and Virgin Islands, U.S.? The simplest option would be to move British Virgin Islands to Virgin Islands, British. Ben Arnold 00:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the rationale is that it's covered by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, although I'm not sure that's the best solution. Chet Fabulous 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgin Islands 

message: Could those two also follow this criteria? About the naming, I mean.23prootie 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Samoa and American Samoa

message: Is there a reason Western Sahara is not on this list?
:I think the rationale is that it's covered by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, although I'm not sure that's the best solution. Chet Fabulous 19:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Western Sahara

message: I do not think that Taiwan should be listed together with internationally recognized sovereign states, since Taiwan is more something like a "disputed territory", and not a "internationally recognized sovereign state". Besides this, most countries which have relationships with Taiwan, actually have economic but no diplomatic relationships. If one country trade with Taiwan it does not mean that this country recognize Taiwan as a state. The China consider that Taiwan is part of China, and many countries recognize this "One China policy". So, the sovereignty of Taiwan is a disputed issue. 
For example, here is a Wikipedia article about Taiwan independence. Quote: "Taiwan independence is a political movement whose goal is primarily to create an independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan (out of the lands currently administered by the Republic of China) that is politically, culturally, and geographically separate from China." 
So, if their goal is to create a "independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan", than it is quite obvious that Taiwan is not sovereign and independent. 
Another example: 
* http://members.aol.com/JoJoLewis/Taiwan/Taiwan_index.html
Quote: "The People's Republic of China has blocked Taiwan from having official diplomatic ties with almost every country in the world. If a country wants to do business with China, it must denounce Taiwan and remove it's embassy. The PRC is blocking Taiwan from having a seat in the United Nations, and prevents the Taiwanese from even the right to fly their own flag in the Olympic Games."
"There are several different opinions among the Taiwanese as to what to to with this question. Some feel that Taiwan belongs to the Taiwanese and that they should declare themselves as an independent country, completely separate from Mainland China. Others are of the opinion that reunification might be acceptable only if China was a truly democratic society. Still others would like to see Taiwan as part of China at any cost. By charter of the United Nations, the people of Taiwan are entitled to decide for themselves what their final outcome will be."
etc, etc....
More web sites about this issue could be seen here:
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=taiwan+independence&btnG=Google+Search -- User:PANONIAN
:The country "Taiwan (ROC)" in the List of countries refers to the regime of the Republic of China (ROC), not the island of Taiwan, the so-called Republic of Taiwan proposed by supporters of Taiwan independence or the administrative division of Taiwan Province.  The ROC government, formally established in Nanjing, China on 1 January 1912 and moved to Taipei in Dec 1949 after its loss in the Chinese Civil War against the Communist Party of China, currently maintains diplomatic relations with 26 international recognized countries.  While it lost the seat of United Nations in 1971 and recoginition of most other states afterwards, in addition to the tendency towards Taiwan independence of its present ruling Democratic Progressive Party, it has never constitutionally renounced its status as the legitimate government of China and its claim over its former territories including Mainland China and Outer Mongolia.  Moreover, having regard to the fact that it has a functional government, effective sovereign control over certain portion of territories and population, and in particulr maintaining diplomatic/official relations with a number of states and international organizations, the ROC is regarded as a country under the category of "internationally recognized sovereign states" in this list, similar to the case of Korea.  As regards its official short form title, you know that there is a debate among many Wikipedians on the subject as detailed in the above session.  It comes to the conclusion of using "Taiwan (ROC)" as its official short form based on the recent announcement of the present ROC administration   to add '(Taiwan)' after the official titile 'Reoublic of China' in order to distinguish ROC from the People's Republic of China (PRC).  It to certain extent makes 'Taiwan' the de facto official abbreviation of ROC.  The above is the rationale behind the inclusion of "Taiwan (ROC)" in the List of countries. DD Ting 07:56, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
Still, a number of books and atlases, which I read, do not list Taiwan or ROC as an "sovereign country", but as an "disputed territory" under the de jure sovereignty of China (People's Republic of China), but de facto independent. So, I think that Taiwan belong in the list together with Abhazia and Northern Cyprus, and not together with 192 undisputed sovereign countries of the World. User:PANONIAN
Here is what I mean:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Taiwan
Quote: "The legal question of which legal entity holds de jure sovereignty over Taiwan is a controversial issue. Various legal claims have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC), and supporters of Taiwan independence over this question, with a variety of arguments advanced by all sides."
User:PANONIAN
:What specific criteria are we to use in defining "de facto" (versus "de jure") independent states? Should we place both North Korea and South Korea under the list too since each claims sovereignty over the other? Or how about North Korea only since it has less diplomatic recognition than South Korea? How about Israel, which is not recognized as a legitimate state by almost all Islamic countries?  
:for the specific criteria, the article states "all recognized by fewer than two other states" in defining the "unrecognized"/"de facto independent" states. It would be "all recognized by no states" excluding Northern Cyprus, which is a puppet state only recognized by Turkey. I would put Taiwan ROC in a different class, given its recognition by several states and participation in governmental organizations. --Jiang 03:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan 

message: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a standard UN measure/rank of how developed a country is or is not.  It is a composite index based on GDP per capita (PPP), literacy, life expectancy, and school enrollment.  However, as it is a composite index/rank, some may challenge its usefulness or applicability as information.
Thus, the following question is put to a vote:
Should any, some, or all of the following be included in the Wikipedia Infobox#Countries|country infobox/template:
:(1)  Human Development Index (HDI) for applicable countries, with year;
:(2)  Rank of country’s HDI;
:(3)  Category of country’s HDI (high, medium, or low)?
YES / NO / UNDECIDED/ABSTAIN - vote here
Thanks!
E Pluribus Anthony 01:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''[[Template_talk:Infobox_Country#VOTE.21.21_-_HDI_in_country_infobox.2Ftemplate.3F|VOTE!!]]''' - HDI in [[Wikipedia:List of infoboxes#Countries|Infobox#Countries|country infobox]]/template? 

message: Given the current problems Wikipedia is having with images, are the large number of images of this page appropriate?
Alan Pascoe 21:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, too many images should not be any problem with the new server any longer. Besides, a strict not-more-than-15-rule would completely destroy image gallery pages...  ナイトスタリオン ✉ 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It's a good thing that although the graphics cannot be loaded promptly, it does not affect loading of text. — Instantnood 15:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the flags necessary? 

message: I've visited the website of the NKR Ministry of Foreign Affairs which mentions that people who wish to travel to NKR need to apply visa at the NKR Permanent Mission in Armenia.  Does anyone know whether this Mission is diplomatically recognized by Armenia?
DD Ting 14:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagorno-Karabakh Republic 

message: I'd like to ask why are public health issues not discussed under countries? (I didn’t check all countries but looked at a few). I’d like to read for example what are the main public health problems in the countries that I’m interested in. Is there a specific reason for this? Or would it be possible for anyone interested to simply start writing about health under different countries?
Liisa Mari 14:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  health in different countries 

message: RvEdit, the footnotes are unnecessary as all of the links can be found in the respective pages of the unrecogized countries. -- 
While I'm aware all the links or information described in them can be found in all the respective articles, Wikipedia policy (and academic norm.) is such that all the information in any individual article need to be cited with external sources. Basically, one need to be able to verify an article with only access to that article and its sources / references without access to any other Wikipedia article. Other WP article exist to provide more details on a subject, not reference. 
And I'm trying to get this list through FLC. Don't help if a reviewer request external sources and it's not there when he look at it, after I said I put it in already. ;-) -- KTC 13:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Do you think we should add the EU as a possible future nation or something like that?
Cameron Nedland 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT a crystal ball. Until they become the Federated States of Europe they don't belong here. - Randwicked Alex B 11:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK fair enough, just thought I would throw it out.
Cameron Nedland 03:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Union 

message: I thought they were joking when they said SuperBowl XL was being broadcast in 234 countries and territories, but I guess they missed a few... Good to know there's something irrelevant playing in Djibouti Bobak 17:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So which ones get the SuperBowl? 

message: Some weeks ago news emerged that the Taliban had decided to formalize their military control of the tribal back-country of Pakistan by declaring an "Islamic state" in Waziristan (Google search).  I'm curious if that might mean we should accord this area the same status as Abkhazia, Somaliland and co.  Thoughts? The Tom 23:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First you need to add that to the Waziristan article. Then we can look at it. --Golbez 01:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having read a few newspostings on this, I s'pose it should count as such, yes. Golbez has got a point, though; you should first put the information into the Waziristan article, and then add Waziristan as a de-facto state to relevant lists. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taliban statelet in N. Pakistan 

message: Someone added Yugoslavia to the list. Should this be deleted? Shawnc 00:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely.Cameron Nedland 01:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia 

message: This list is simply ridiculous. For example: You CANNOT list China AND Hong Kong as TWO countries because: Hong Kong is a part of China!
There are only 193 countries. The only ones who are not members of the United Nations are the Vatican and Taiwan.
--Damifb 13:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Consecuently, I moved the article to List of countries and other territorial entities.--Damifb 15:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 193 sovereign states.  Countries need not be sovereign.  Considering this list gained featured status for its methodology, I imagine there are no shortage of people who would disagree with this move.  As such, I'm reverting the move. The Tom 18:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The new title was very inaccurate, because than all provinces and municipalities should be included. There is an explanation why HK and macau are included. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi fellows. Thank you for your concern. I agree with the "municipalities" argument, BUT then we have to come out with other proposal for a title. In international language, and in common language in most of the countries, the sense of the word "country" is moving to be exactly the same that "sovereign state", so it still seems ridiculous to call "Jersey" a country.--Damifb 10:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Please come up wit a suggestion. But it is not unusual to make a difference between independent and not-independent countries. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also endorse the current state of this article. —Nightstallion (?) 14:53, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there is a formal proposal on the table, but I think the territories in the second section should be pared down.  eg, New Caledonia should stay, but the other french territories should go. the australian territories should go, the american territories should go, the "international treaties" should go, kosovo should go, tokelau should go, most of the british ones should go, in particular the bases. SchmuckyTheCat 16:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Why? All these entities are inhabited dependencies of countries or are listed because of another reason. I could agree on a deletion of the bases, since they do not have any form of self-government. The french d.o.m. are not listed, since they are in the first place part of the motherland. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I can agree with that. On Cook, see , the website of the COok government, where it is clear that it is not a sovereign state. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Within the framework of the Realm of New Zealand, the Cook Islands is not a sovereign state. It however already participate in a few international institutions which membership is open only to sovereign states. - Privacy 14:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, I give up. Perhaps in English language a country is not a sovereign state after all...
--Damifb 20:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are ONLY 193 countries 

message: I fixed the display of some of the flags for dependent territories of France and Australia.  Since the dependent territories of other countries (most notably the UK) do not display the mother country's flag on this list unless the dependencies do not have a flag of their own, those of Australia and France should also not display those countries' flags, for consistency.  I removed the Australian flag from Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, and the French flag from French Polynesia, Wallis and Futuna, and Saint Pierre and Miquelon (the last of which I had to fix the flagicon page to display the actual flag and not the French flag).
I also removed the flag listed for Mayotte and left only the French flag, since the Mayotte flag is not a flag but a coat of arms from what I see on the Mayotte page.
The only place I see that there might be an argument against my change is for Cocos (Keeling) Islands, since its flag is unofficial, unlike the similar one for Christmas Island.   OZLAWYER  talk  18:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag fixes 

message: Though we shouldn't predict the result of the referendum, so should wait till results are official, what stance are we gonna take over serbia/montenegro when the referendum is over and if the Montenegrans vote for independence? I think the simplest way would be to list 'Serbia/Montenegro' as one entity with a footnote.
Alternatively, we could list Serbia/Montenegro under the heading '1 state due to dissolve on (date)'; and then have serbia and montenegro listed as '2 states due to seceed on (date)'. Thoughts? --Robdurbar 23:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There likely won't be too much ambiguity as to what exact date S&M (tee-hee) will legally cease to be... as this is hopefully going to be a cleanish divorce involving two pre-existing and largely autonomous governments rather than a drawn-out war, the various diplomatic niceties about when sovereignty is officially forked and international recognition extended ought to be pretty clear-cut.  Until then and no earlier, I say we stick with a strict legalish definition of it being one, with a disclaimer (like the one I wrote) reminding people to mentally add one to a few numbers if they wish to reflect the split as having already happened in terms of an expression of public will. The Tom 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Serbia/Montenegro

message: Technical question, but shouldn't they be considered a single entity rather than two?  There's one governor, no apparent legal distinction between the two chunks of lands, and of course one article.  I'd merge, but it seems a bit drastic on an FA to knock the numbers around willy-nilly. The Tom 19:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be one entry. The CIA World Factbook lists them as two but the British Government lists them as one. I would be,live the British Government on this one. (Shocktm | Talk  | contribs.) 20:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, bold I shall be.  Anybody should feel free to revert and discuss this further should the humour strike them. The Tom 22:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it should be included. See the discussion below. The difference with Guantanamo Bay is at least that the UK administers it as a overseas territory. Its position is arranged in treaties. For me there is no doubt that they should be included. Electionworld Talk? 10:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akrotiri and Dhekelia 

message: Changed the flag of Mayotte back from the flag of France to the Mayotte one.  The CIA World Factbook says it is a flag (with a coat of arms on it, but a flag nonetheless), although unofficial.  I don't think the unofficial status is that important, it is obviously accepted as the flag of Mayotte in Mayotte, even if not in France.  There are several other unofficial flags on this list, including the one of Tokelau I just added as well.  As long as it is accepted in the country it relates to, it should be on the list. Feel free to argue.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are unofficial, and only official flags should and will be used. —Nightstallion (?) 13:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who made you dictator?  OZLAWYER  talk  14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody, but it's a question of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Who are we to decide which unofficial flags should be used if there's more than one? How unofficial is too unofficial for use in an encyclopedia? The nonsense will never end, so the clear byline is to use official flags. —Nightstallion (?) 14:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't more than one official flag, really.  It's not as though we're arguing which of more than one local flag is to be used.  We're arguing whether the local flag should be shown over the colonial power's flag.  For instance, with Mayotte you have "officialness" according to the people of the territory, and you have "officialness" according to France.  None of France's overseas collectivities have official flags--it's not just Mayotte.  You have to remove the flag from Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Wallis and Futuna, and even French Polynesia (which I assume you will now do).  France simply doesn't appear to believe that its possessions should have official flags, although the people of those places certainly do. If the CIA World Factbook agrees that while "unofficial" to France the flags are real enough to include, why shouldn't we?  OZLAWYER  talk  15:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there's just one kind of officialness, meaning "adopted through a law". PYF's flag is official, SPM's, WLF's and MYT's aren't, which is why their templates don't use the local flags but the French one. —Nightstallion (?) 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adopted through a law, eh?  What about a non-legal political act?  What about when laws conflict?  Or policies?  The flags of Wallis and Futuna and Saint Pierre and Miquelon are used in those countries as flags of those countries, despite there being no law legislating such from France.  "Full stop."  OZLAWYER  talk  18:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-legal political acts are cute, but irrelevant. We're already presenting those flags as "inofficial flag" in the respective articles, we should *not* be using them in templates representing those territories officially in international organisations or competitions, because they simply are *not* used for that. —Nightstallion (?) 19:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, none of these templates really go to anything other than this page and some flag template/country code pages because these places wouldn't have representation in any organization or competition, but would be represented as France itself. The only thing I could possibly imagine the French overseas collectivities being involved in would be a competition against each other (and even that is probably highly unlikely), in which case they almost certainly would compete under their own flags!  OZLAWYER  talk  20:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mayotte and Tokelau flags 

message: From the CIA World Factbook:
*conventional long form: Republic of Macedonia
*conventional short form: Macedonia; note - the provisional designation used by the UN, EU, and NATO is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)
*local long form: Republika Makedonija
*local short form: Makedonija
Both conventional and local short forms are Macedonia.  Why would we pander to Greece on our list by always using "Republic of"?
 OZLAWYER  talk  14:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPOV, obviously. —Nightstallion (?) 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The constitutional name is "Republika Makedonija" i.e. "Republic of Macedonia" as a whole. The "Republic of" is part of this "official" name (if by official we mean the constitutional name) so I do not see why to omit it. JavMilos 23:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonia 

message: What's the justification for including Saint Helena's dependencies (Tristan da Cunha and Ascension Island) as separate entities but not Guernsey's dependencies (Alderney, Sark, and Herm)?  I know it would seem a little weird to include an island with a population of 60 people (Herm) as a country, but Tristan da Cunha itself only has a population of approximately 280 (Sark has 610 and Alderney has 2400).  Don't Guernsey's dependencies fall into pretty much the same category of entities as Saint Helena's?  OZLAWYER  talk  04:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, personally, am against including Saint Helena's dependencies; at most they should be mentioned together with Saint Helena, but not more. —Nightstallion (?) 11:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they actually dependencies, though, or simply just devolved local governments with an asymmetric relationship to the "central government" akin to how the Scottish Parliament's relationship to Westminister?  Are there any Channel Islanders on Wikipedia who might be able to clarify this? The Tom 20:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbuda in Antigua and Barbuda and Rotuma in Fiji are also dependencies. Passer-by 12:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guernsey's dependencies 

message: Both Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha are separate UK overseas territories but are administered through Saint Helena owing to their remote locations and limited population. As you can see in the [UK FCO's homepage , , , , they are listed separately in the profiles of countries and overseas territories, and have their own information pages. A notable example of their uniqueness is that both of them issue and use their own stamps and have their own local laws (you may refer to their respective articles in Wikipedia for reference). So I put them on the list again. -- DD Ting 14:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're included in ISO 3166-1 of Saint Helena, though, so they're not considered to be *that* separate officially... —Nightstallion (?) 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you're aware, the overseas departments of France like Reunion are also included in the ISO 3166-1 list but they are not on the List of countries. On the other hand, the British Crown Dependencies are also not on the ISO 3166-1 list.  For the List of countries, it has its own definitions which are mainly political. Indeed, both dependencies are treated as separate territories by the UK government. They have their own Administrators and laws but probably due to remoteness and limited population, they are put under the Governorship of Saint Helena. So they are referred to by the UK Government as "dependencies of Saint Helena". Besides, in the ISO 3166-1 list there are indeed reserved codes for them alongside others like the Crown dependencies. Please see ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. -- DD Ting 15:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't say ISO is the clearcut delimiter between what's a country and what isn't, mind you.  FWIW, Jersey and Guernsey have been  promoted to full ISO entities and reserved hardly means much when Clipperton Island's got a reservation dating back to IPU assignment or whatever the case might have been. The Tom 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands is administered from Falkland Islands. Yet it is never said to be a dependency of the Falklands since 18 April 1985. - Privacy 14:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha 

message: I changed the designation of "overseas collectivity" to that of "overseas community", as per what the article on that type of entity says.  I removed the "overseas country" designation from French Polynesia, since it's listed in the top section only as an overseas collectivity (now community), even though it's officially also called an overseas country.  If someone wants to redesignate it an overseas country, then the top part will have to be rewritten to indicate the dual naming.  OZLAWYER  talk  14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with the change proposed by Osgoodelawyer but just wonder if we also need to revise the related articles of the four oversea communities as they are still referred to as "overseas collectivities" there. Concerning French Polynesia, it became an overseas community (collectivity) in 2003 with the particular designation of "overseas country" to underline the large autonomy of the territory. Someone points out that the full title of it should be "Overseas Country of French Polynesia". The CIA World Factbook names it "Overseas Lands of French Polynesia". Does anyone have idea about what its official long-form title in English is? -- DD Ting 15:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  French Polynesia and the Overseas Communities 

message: The long form name of Pitcairn Islands is "Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie, and Oeno Islands". Please see UK FCO website and CIA World Factbook. -- DD Ting 16:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitcairn Islands 

message: This is a misuse of the term "sui generis."  Akrotiri and Dhekelia clearly can be and are included in a wider term, Sovereign Base Areas.  In fact, if you check Sovereign Base Areas you'll see that there was another one in the past, the Treaty Ports in Ireland.  I don't know how to rename it, though, since they're Sovereign Base Areas, plural so "1 Sovereign Base Area on the island of Cyprus, Akrotiri and Dhekelia" doesn't work. OzLawyer 00:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sui generis status of Akrotiri and Dhekelia 

message: I don't agree with the POV attempts of chaning Timor-Leste to East Timor and Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast; what I do agree with is that we should finally get this standardised across Wikipedia. Anyone up to organising a vote on Timor-Leste, Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar and whichever other countries we can find for which common and official names differ? —Nightstallion (?) 06:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, do not organize a vote. The definition now is clear, we use the official short name in English as preferred by the country's government. We can change that, but then we should use the names normally used now in reference works. Côte d'Ivoire has become the more normal name used in the Anglophone world. Even the Times atlas uses Côte d'Ivoire and Myanmar. It does use East Timor instead of Timor-Leste. I would suggest in that case Côte d'Ivoire, Myanmar, East Timor and Transnistria, since these are the names nowadays used in English. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Burma is just the English translation of the Burmese word Myanmar. No Ivory Coast is in english never reffered to as Cott Deevoah, but in present Anglophone reference works, Côte d'Ivoire is usually used. See e.g. the CIA World Factbook or the last edition of the Times atlasses. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Electionworld's comment as the priniciple has already been stated clearly in para 2 of the list unless we change it. -- DD Ting 07:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: As I had already pointed out, the country names in question are all adopted by their governments as their official titles in English and all these names are all accepted by and registered with the UN & ISO.  Here in this list the naming criteria is the official names adopted by the countries and used by the international organizations.  If we compare CIA World Factbook/Times Atlas with UN/ISO, I would say the latter prevails. -- DD Ting 11:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But a fact remains that the official name of the country is according to Ivorian law transdlated into Côte d'Ivoire. This translation is used generally in the diplomatic world and by main reference works. (which is not the case for Timor-Leste). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This comment is inaccurate. The Macau government uses both Macau and Macao in official English publications and other situations, including even in the naming of high-visibility entities like the Macau International Airport. In common usage, the spelling of "Macau" prevails, with practically the entire English-publication world having adopted the u spelling. Wikipedia reflects this by spelling most of its articles as Macau due to its policy of adherence to common usage, while not contravening official policy. In fact, the only government which consistently spells Macau as "Macao" in its English publications is that of the central government in Beijing.--Huaiwei 15:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Timor is the name of the island which is politically separated into two parts, with East Timor being an independent state and West Timor under the control of Indonesia.  Just for info. Pdytwong 08:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timor-Leste 

message: See Talk:List of countries by area#Ranking of non-sovereign states and Talk:List of countries by population density#Is the information in this article true? for a discussion on whether to rank countries that are not sovereign states in a ranked listing of countries by area, population, etc. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment 

message: What does this mean?
"# W and F What – Territory of Brett and his accomplices [38]"
The footnote doesn't appear to go to anything useful.
:Fixed. --Polaron | Talk 18:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  W and F: What? 

message: Should it be
Republic of China (Taiwan)
China (Republic of) (Taiwan) – Republic of China (Taiwan)
or
China (Taiwan) – Republic of China (Taiwan)
or just as it was
China (Republic of) – Republic of China
I think we should do the Third since (Taiwan is a discription not apart the name (see the text of .
BionicWilliam 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (to the anon who keeps adding "(Taiwan)" in every single sentence) It looks bad and degrades the quality of this article. —Khoikhoi 23:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert War-Republic of China: Request comments

message: Is there any proof that Tartupaluk, aka Hans Island—is now an independent country? If so, do any countries recognize it? —Khoikhoi 04:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, this is interesting. However, I think we should wait a little bit until other news sources say the same thing. —Khoikhoi 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, isn't the island uninhabited? How can there be a government on it? —Khoikhoi 05:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Tartupaluk is just another micronation claiming a dispute island as its territory. It should not be listed here. (Shocktm | Talk  | contribs.) 21:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I think that Tartupaluk is a real nation.  I have even applied for nationality there.  Even if it is not a real nation, I noticed Wikipedia has other unrecognized nations like Somaliland in there, why not Tartupaluk?  Livingdone 18:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about: Somaliland is a real country, with real territory, real government, and real citizens who live there.  Tartupaluk, on the other hand, is an uninhabited (and uninhabitable) piece of rock which the "Prince" probably hasn't even visited, despite his claims to the contrary. It's not a country.  It might, one day, be "famous" enough for a micronation article (its current article is going to be deleted), but not yet. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tartupaluk? 

message: I may be missing something, but why is the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria excluded?--Tekleni 08:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is not a country.  It's the name separatists give to their proposed state, but that state does not exist.  Chechnya is the Chechen Republic, a federal subject of Russia, and is not independently controlled. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 12:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chechnya was briefly an unrecognized State, before reincorporated into Russia as a federal subject. (Was its Statehood recognized by Taliban Afghanistan?) - Privacy 21:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The key word is was. Countries and states that were are not listed, otherwise East Germany, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, the USSR, Tannu Tuva, Eastern Turkestan, etc. would be listed. If in the future the Chechen rebels gain control over the majority of Chechnya and set up a functioning government (a la South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Somaliland etc) then Chechnya would be listed.72.27.92.21 21:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chechen Republic of Ichkeria 

message: Please take part on the ongoing debate here on list of unrecognized territories. Thank you. --Wissahickon Creek talk 08:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ongoing debate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Europe#Unrecognized... here]

message: A recent edit tried to change "Macao" to "Macau", a change I agree with, but which I reverted due to lack of discussion on the talk page.  I still have problems with the way it was decided (mostly by one user, I think who we didn't want to war with), that the "official English names as dictated by the country" would be used.  First off, the "Timor-Leste" designation conflicts with WP:NCON#Dealing_with_self-identifying_terms, which states that geographical directions should be translated (and uses East Timor as the example!)  This use is also clearly the one in favour in "the real world".  Other terms like "Pridnestrovie" are highly unlikely to be found in English, and they really should not be used here.  I argued before for using the name that is found in the article for each entity, and I again say that that is how it should go.  I mean, if it is policy (maybe "guideline"--but a guideline which is followed everywhere by here) that "Timor-Leste" should be "East Timor", then the rest should also be changed to go along with it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is undeniably a long-standing dispute over the spelling of Macau, but concensus (save for one obstinate but vocal user) has largely favoured the "u" spelling, judging by the current article spelling and related changes elsewhere. There is thus no reason for this list to be an exception.--Huaiwei 15:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list is an exception in many places, and seems to give reasons for it, the reasons being that the official English name as designated by the entity itself are used. (Macau usually uses Macao in English, apparently).  But in the case of Timor-Leste, this conflicts with Wikipedia guidelines, and in many cases it conflicts with common English usage.  English usage really should be the way we go (just like it's how we go on article names). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Macau may be the Portuguese name, but even in official documents issued by the Macanese government, the u spelling does appear in English publications. I doubt they committed a grave error in its official government tourism website , where it markets itself to the English-speaking world as "Macau". A description on its passport uses "Macau" despite "Macao" appearing on the passport itself . In other words, the trend towards the use of "Macau" is already evident all over the English-speaking world, and this has crept into official English publications in Macau as well. To thus insist that only "Macao" based purely on the argument that it is "English" becomes contested, because in this case "Macau" has apparantly been accepted into tbe English language as well, both domestically and internationally.--Huaiwei 16:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I spell it as Macau, but I reckon both spellings are common. How is Macau evident all over the English speaking world? Is it the same in Singapore? - Privacy 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One simply needs to pick up all major English media publications in the world to access its usage in the English speaking world, and that includes in Britain, in the US, and in Australia. Singapore, where English usage is predominant, also uses the "Macau" spelling overwelmingly in everyday life. The few exceptions are in certain governmental publications such as the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where I personally even wrote to them to inform that they had two different spellings.--Huaiwei 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is wrong to use both spellings? Both are common. - Privacy 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Macau is more common in English today.--Huaiwei 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who are you to be so authoritative? Is Macau leading Macao with a huge majority and Macao is so rare that it should not even be used on Wikipedia English version? - Privacy 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The Commission of the European Communities submitted to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament few days ago a document on EU's relations with Hong Kong and Macau. It uses Macao in the whole document. UK's FCO and Foreign Affairs Canada likewise use Macao far more often. So as UN organs do. - Privacy 22:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That certain organisations uses the Macao spelling does not deviate from the fact the other organisations also use the Macau spelling. The debate is no longer over whether "Macau" is Portuguese or not, or whether it is official or not. It clearly is in both cases. The debate is where "Macau" or "Macao" is more commonly used in all contexts around the world. In the present situation, "Macau" clearly prevails.--Huaiwei 21:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Macau is the only spelling in modern Portuguese. It is also the only spelling used in modern times in several Roman letter based languages. Therefore it "clearly prevails". In English both spellings are common, however. Macao is more likely to be used for official purposes, although Macau is also used for official purposes. - Privacy 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. "Macau" is now well-used in English publications around the world more due to the move towards adoption of local spellings in the English language for geographical entities over time, especially since the last decades or so. In other words, that "Macau" is only Portuguese is becoming more debatable, since it has become anglicised as well. Macau is actually far more common than Macao in English publications. I challenge you so list all major English newspapera and magazine who use "Macao" as a measure of their prevalance in contemporary English.--Huaiwei 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: " In other words, that "Macau" is only Portuguese is becoming more debatable " - Excuse me for interrupting, but who said "Macau" is only Portuguese? — Instantnood 19:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivoire)? What about Puerto Rico, Sao Tome and Principe, Costa Rica, El Salvador, San Marino? - Privacy 20:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of Ivory Coast/Cote d'Ivoire aside, all those other names are the names as used in English and in the articles. I fail to see any point being made. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for clarifying. You have shown what we should follow are common names, not English names (Costa Rica to Rich Coast, and El Salvador to The Saviour). Then what about the Ivory Coast? Is Cote d'Ivoire remarkably more common in English than Ivory Coast? - Privacy 20:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to clarify further, I disagree that the common names in English are not the English names.  Simply because a term could conceivably be translated into a comparable English term does not mean that that theoretical translation is the English name.  The English name is the name used in English.  Period.  As for Ivory Coast, I do not want to go there at this time—there has been serious debate all over Wikipedia over this issue.  While I prefer Cote d'Ivoire, and was actually taught (in English) that that was the name of the country, there is still, supposedly, a greater use of Ivory Coast.  But if one attempts to change the name of the article, one will have one's head bitten off.  I'd prefer to keep it as Cote d'Ivoire, as that is the name of the article on Wikipedia, and only change it if and when that article's name is changed. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Either do the proposal one off, or else don't do it. If we are to adhere formality and official usage such as the U.N., Macao, Timor-Leste and Cote d'Ivoire are the choices for this list and for titles of those articles. If we go on common names, then East Timor, Macau (not as remarkably more common than Macao as East Timor to Timor Leste or Ivory Coast to Cote d'Ivoire) and Ivory Coast. - Privacy 21:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that that is the way to go.  If absolutely necessary, I will go with Ivory Coast, if it means the others are named correctly—but I do not think it has to be that way.  Wikipedia already has chosen names for the articles, we could say our naming is "according to article names as already decided on Wikipedia." └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By applying the same scale that we chose Macau and East Timor, Ivory Coast should have been chosen as the article names, and for listing here. Or else, don't change anything, anywhere. What we have for article names and for this list is nothing huge problematic. Everyone knows what they read, and gets what they are looking for. - Privacy 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Privacy, I do understand.  The problem is that Cote d'Ivoire was not named Ivory Coast, and that's why the issue isn't so cut and dry as you'd like to make it out to be. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to change, stick to the same standard for all countries, and for both listings and article titles. - Privacy 17:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rehashing "official" name issue 

message: Should Scotland be included as a dependancy of the United Kingdom, as it has it's own democratcally elected (by the people of Scotland) government which controls most of the internal descisions such as healthcare, education etc. The British government only decides on issues which would also affect england and Wales such as the defence of the country. 
Any contributions welcome as since the Vatican City/Holy See is dependant on Italy but has it's own internal government surely Scotland is no different?
Donaldhenderson 15:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is.  The control Scotland has is actually pretty limited, but that's not the issue.  Scotland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, as are Wales, Northern Ireland, and England.  The sort of analogous situation would be an autonomous region in another country.  Autonomous regions are not included because even though they may have a certain level of internal control, they are considered integral parts of the countries they belong to.  While I agree that Scotland is a country by many definitions, it is not a country by the definition for this list, and if the definition were changed, there would be a great deal more entities to take into consideration, and there would be no end to the arguments over which should be included and which excluded (since such entities have varying different degrees of autonomy between each other). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So therefore we do not list Catalonia, Bavaria or Flanders. Electionworld Talk? 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Scotland will be in this list once it's independent. —Nightstallion (?) 15:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or at least it achieves its own membership in such instruments as the World Trade Organization. - Privacy 17:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catalonia, Bavaria or Flanders is Autonomous communities, but Scotland status is similiar to Hong Kong or Macau, so Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland should be included. btw, I hope west papua, checnya/chechen, and other non-self-governing territories/non federation countries can be added in the list just for information. what is the status of Tibet??A tumiwa 04:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is the Scotland status similar to Hong Kong??? Electionworld Talk? 16:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. It isn't, as we all know... —Nightstallion (?) 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They all might be interagal parts of the UK but they play more of an independent role in International Affairs than say for example the constituent states of the USA. The fact is the they are constituent COUNTRIES with thousands of years of history on a world stage, they're own International sports teams, flags, national anthems and elected governments. They are more than simply autonomous regions and should be included on the list.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Macphisto (talk • contribs)  22:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Scotland a member of international bodies like the EU or UN? Is Elizabeth the Queen of Scotland?  Is Tony Blair the PM of Scotland? No because the UK is a member of the EU and the UN not Scotland. Elizabeth is the Queen of the UK not Scotland. Tony Blair is the PM of the UK not Scotland. The only independent role in international affairs Scotland has is competing in the European Cup and World Cup.  Consequently it is not a country per the definition of this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shocktm (talk • contribs) 00:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ireland is an island, but it is a country and a sovereign state too. The Republic of Ireland, whose official name seems to be Ireland, is a country/sovereign state on the island of Ireland. Electionworld Talk? 14:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotland 

message: The information regarding Palestine in the article is not accurate. The State of Palestine has, as far as I know, no direct connection with the Palestinian Authority, which is a body established pursuant to agreements between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (which, of course, is also the body that proclaimed the State of Palestine). Furthermore, it is the PLO which is the permanent observer at the UN, not the State of Palestine, nor the Palestinian Authority, the latter being in fact prohibited from engaging in foreign relations under the agreements between the PLO and Israel. 
However, upon proclamation of the State of Palestine in 1988, the UN General Assembly decided that the PLO observer mission should thenceforward be designated "Palestine" for the purposes of UN business in UNGAR 43/177. This did not make the State of Palestine an observer at the UN instead of the PLO, as is clear from the text of the resolution. I am not sure to what extent there is a legal relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, but I suspect it would be more correct to refer to this by simply saying that "the PA, which performs certain governmental functions in parts of the OPT, was established pursuant to agreements between Israel and the PLO" rather than by saying that the PLO exercises partial de fact control of the OPT through it. For some reason my attempts to edit the article have failed. Palmiro | Talk 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error concerning Palestine 

message: As this list includes areas other than countries (sovereign states), viz...
: "...internationally recognized and generally unrecognized independent states, inhabited dependent territories including areas of special sovereignty..."
..does anyone else feel a more accurate name for this article would be List of countries and territories or the like...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, do not start a name discussion, since it doesn't lead to anything. The canadian territories are not listed here. So there is allways a problem with every name. Electionworld Talk? 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with EW. The name is fine as it is. —Nightstallion (?) 17:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would second that. There is a parallel discussion at categories for deletion to the same end. Trying to replace every occurrence of "country" in Wikipedia by "countries or territories" is a bad idea and it just doesn't lead anywhere.  -- Domino theory 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Self-governing dependencies and areas recognized by treaty are always listed separately in UN lists of countries. Sovereign states are only a subset of the more general notion of country. --Polaron | Talk 05:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Why are French territories other than French Polynesia and New Caledonia included? — Instantnood 12:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. All overseas lands of France, be they départements d'outre-mer or collectivité d'outre-mer, are integral part of France. Only French Polynesia and New Caledonia are special enough. Passer-by 12:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Except French Polynesia is a collectivité d'outre-mer established by article 74 of the constitution, just like Wallis and Futuna or St-Pierre and Miquelon.  The Tom 18:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *No, Passer-by, overseas departments (like Guadeloupe and French Guiana) are integral parts of France, while overseas collectivities (like Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and Wallis and Futuna) are not.  That's the definition of the difference between the two types of entities—overseas departments are no different, legally, than those in Metropolitan France, whereas collectivities are much different).  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are overseas collectivities integral parts of the French Republic? Or do they like overseas territories of the UK? Passer-by 21:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Integral" is a bit of an awkward term, but if we're using it to mean "no effective constitutional differentiation between it and other parts of the country," then, no they're definately not integral, while the overseas departments are.  Guadeloupe is as much a part of France as the Isles of Scilly are part of the UK or Hawaii is part of America.  The overseas collectivities are quite different on a legal basis, as their existence stems from a completely different article of the French constitution than the state of France proper.  That said, they're only broadly comparable to British overseas territories, not perfect matches.  For instance, some countries have provide for representation in their legislatures from dependent territories and some don't--there is representation in the French Parliament from the overseas collectivities, just as the Faeroes send people to the Danish parliament, while there are no British MPs from Bermuda or the Isle of Man and no US Senators from Guam.  The Tom 23:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an English version of the relevant chapters in the French constitution. Passer-by 10:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French territories

message: Can someone do the various (uc/lc) redirects - "states of the world" to this page and "States of Europe" to the relevant page etc. Jackiespeel 15:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects

message: As an alternative to renaming the article List of countries and territories or something similar, I volunteer to reorganize the list so that dependent/autonomous/etc territories etc become sublists below the country with which they are associated. For example, section A of the current list:
; A
Abkhazia	Republic of Abkhazia </tr>	Afghanistan	Islamic Republic of Afghanistan </tr>	Akrotiri and Dhekelia	Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK overseas territory) </tr>	Åland	Åland Islands (Autonomous province of Finland) </tr>	Albania	Republic of Albania </tr>	Algeria	People's Democratic Republic of Algeria </tr>	American Samoa	Territory of American Samoa (US overseas territory) </tr>	Andorra	Principality of Andorra </tr>	Angola	Republic of Angola </tr>	Anguilla (UK overseas territory) </tr>	Anguilla (UK overseas territory) </tr>	Antigua and Barbuda	</tr>	Argentina	Argentine RepublicArgentina is also named Argentine Nation for purposes of legislation. </tr>	Armenia	Republic of Armenia </tr>	Aruba (Self-governing country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands) </tr>	Aruba (Self-governing country in the Kingdom of the Netherlands) </tr>	Ascension Island (Dependency of the UK overseas territory of Saint Helena) </tr>	Ascension Island (Dependency of the UK overseas territory of Saint Helena) </tr>	Australia	Commonwealth of Australia </tr>	Austria	Republic of Austria </tr>	Azerbaijan	Republic of AzerbaijanSee also Nagorno-Karabakh. </tr>
----
...would become:
----
(Italics indicate de facto status as a country)
; A
	</tr>		Republic of Abkhazia </tr>		Islamic Republic of Afghanistan </tr>		Republic of Albania </tr>		People's Democratic Republic of Algeria </tr>		Principality of Andorra </tr>		Republic of Angola </tr>		</tr>		Argentine RepublicAlso named "Argentine Nation" for purposes of legislation. </tr>		Republic of Armenia </tr>		Commonwealth of Australia </tr>		Republic of Austria </tr>		Republic of AzerbaijanSee also Nagorno-Karabakh. </tr>
----
...with the dependent etc territories appearing under their associated countries elsewhere in the list:
----
; F
         	</tr>    	... </tr>	... </tr>	
:	
Republic of Finland
: Åland Islands (autonomous province)
... </tr>	... </tr>	         	         		
; N
         	</tr>    	... </tr>	... </tr>	
: 
:	
Kingdom of the NetherlandsLegally the Netherlands refers to the mainland European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, with the latter consisting of the Netherlands and two overseas countries, namely Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles.
: (self-governing country)
: (self-governing country)
... </tr>	... </tr>	         	         		
; U
   	</tr>	... </tr>	... </tr>	
:  Akrotiri and Dhekelia
: 
: ...
: 
::: Ascension Island	
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
: Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK overseas territory)
: (UK overseas territory)
: ...
: (UK overseas territory)
::: (Dependency of Saint Helena)
...	...  	         	         		
:	
United States of America
: Territory of American Samoa (US overseas territory)	         	         		
...	...  	         	         		
----
* I hope this approach is an acceptable amendement/solution to the current situation. David Kernow (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if it is, and it may also cause a huge increase in incorrect edits, as people add states, provinces and the like to the countries (since they would then have "subunits" listed).  └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand why people would start add states (within countries), provinces, etc; these don't fulfil the description given in the opening paragraph...?  Yours, David (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason, David, is because people are dumb. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That this kind of reminders constantly appear just goes to show that as far as common usage is concerned, many do equate a country with a sovereign state.--Huaiwei 14:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They do because they are not aware of those countries that are not sovereign states. It is very true that sovereign states in modern times make up the super-majority of countries. But that does not mean countries and sovereign states are simply the same thing. - Privacy 14:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what makes you think they are that ignorant? Pick up any reputable reference text in existance today, and almost without fail, all of them will define the word "country" as a "sovereign state", and listed as the first definition should multiple definitions appear. Numerous users above have attested to the fact that the majority of English users in the world today equate the word "country" to mean a "sovereign state", and this has nothing to do with "sovereign states" making up the majority of political entities today (fact is, they do not). If you wish to apply alternative definitions of the word "country", especially the one as defined by political geographers, then I find it interesting that you are applying this definition selectively.--Huaiwei 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess I feel the list would benefit from a clearer distinction between "countries"/"sovereign states" and "dependent"/"overseas"/"autonomous"/etc territories. I believe this should be possible from a NPOV. By "countries that are not sovereign states" do you mean "countries" that have not (yet) been recognized as such by (the majority of) the world's sovereign states...?  David (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  All sovereign states are countries, but not all countries are sovereign states. E.g., Tokelau is a country. Greenland is a country. Aruba is a country. None of them is sovereign state. They do not need recognition from other sovereign states to be sovereign states, since they are not sovereign states. They are just countries. - Privacy 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So is Tibet a country?--Huaiwei 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If it isnt broken, there wont be constant discourse here.--Huaiwei 15:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a legal definition of countries, and we stick to it already. I fail to see what the problem is. The argument that there is discourse is just a Wikipedia "feature" but that does not mean that I am right, or that the next person is. Which is why we stick to the facts. Just the facts, please. - Mauco 15:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I read correctly, the said "definition" refers to states, not countries. The same article clearly mentions that this definition does come under contestation too. Is wikipedia in the business of vindicating one source, while ignoring opinions of others?--Huaiwei 15:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. That's not a definition for country. It is a definition for sovereign state. - Privacy 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Its the definition of a state. Dont add words which arent in the text.--Huaiwei 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd better go read some POL 100 textbooks. State in that context means sovereign state. - Privacy 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see some inconsistencies there. If you wish to apply "context" to add words into legal definitions, then may I ask why you cant substitute that word to read "country", since that is what its contextual meaning refers to, anyway?--Huaiwei 16:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  legal definition of countries – thanks for this link; will examine. David (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative to [[#Article name]] suggestion above 

message: Can the above have a redirect to this article page please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.75.209 (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done.--Damifb 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: States of the World

message: I would like to change the vertical "List by country" navigational box on the right of this page to a horizontal one at the bottom. Please discuss at Template talk:Lists by country. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "List by country" navigational box 

message: Would anyone else prefer this article set out as a table? This would enable us to fill in a short list of vital statistics about each country - e.g. short name, extended name, its capital, dependencies/dependency of, population as of (date).  It is my opinion that the article should be interesting in its own right, and not just a point to spring off to others.  I came to this page not really to find specific countries - I doubt many have - but rather for an interesting comparison of countries, to learn capital cities, etc.  Other lists are interesting in their own right because they are listed by something non-trivial, e.g. GDP, whereas an alphabetical list is just a little dull.  The article as a table can still completely fulfill its current purpose.
Jameshfisher 15:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to suggest that the list consist of (at least) two columns, viz. the flags+links and the long-form names (or notes re dependency etc). As to whether to include other columns with other information, I'm not sure... maybe population, area and HDI...?  If your idea is taken up, a further possibility would be to make the list a single "wikitable sortable" table, meaning it would then be possible to redisplay the table sorted according to population, area, HDI, ... Anyone else..?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooo, I didn't even know this "sortable" thing existed.  When I have time soon, I may just be bold and go ahead and do it.  One thing I'm wondering: as all this other information (e.g. area) is also listed elsewhere, I don't suppose there is any way to avoid redundancy? Templates?  I don't know, I don't usually do much esoteric wikipedia coding. Jameshfisher 14:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table?  More columns? 

message: Reason: the inconsistency of the title: List of countries  and description which also include the dependency.--Ksyrie 23:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've been over this before, and it comes down to "country" having multiple legitimate meanings.  Basically, an understanding was reached that the definition of "country" which would be used for this article would be one which was inherently an umbrella term for "sovereign states, dependencies and areas of special sovereignty."  We draw attention to this fact right in the lead paragraphs, and concede that to some, this might seem to run contrary to their definition of country, and direct them to the list of sovereign states instead.  I, and many others, feel quite strongly that a dependency can have just as much claim to the label "country" as a fully sovereign state.  The Tom 03:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some folks here are "compromising" on the notion of the word "country" referring to political entities of various levels of sovereignty, so as to avoid causing article name disgreements and such, but it dosent deviate from the fact that the word "country" is still commonly associated with that of a "sovereign state". I dont quite agree with your suggestion that there are "many" who believe otherwise.--Huaiwei 14:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What should we do?        — Instantnood 21:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Meaning? Those sources arent describing a "country" the way you want it either, so just what are you getting at?--Huaiwei 13:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by " a "country" the way you want " ? Did you actually read every one of the links? — Instantnood 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion of Name changing of this article

message: Just a preemptive FYI before I trigger the reversion gods. Saint Martin and Saint Barths were legally separated from Guadeloupe (an integral part of France) and reconstituted as separate overseas collectivities (non-integral dependent territories) by a law that took effect on February 22. The Tom 20:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saint Martin/Saint Barths 

message: You may find it usefull to peruse cities that link to the different timezones. (ex. Go to UTC-5 and click what links here) 
I did try to make a category for cities by UTC timezone but a CfD prevailed and it was removed... taking away a list of 5000+ cities categorized (see my back-up. There was not enough support for such a category. 
Many cities currently utilize the  and have a link to the related UTC timezone. Use this to your benefit. You can find a list of cities by clicking the corresponding UTC timezone. And, if ever you feel like bringing back the category we will need at least 5 to 7 people to support this. GO to my project WP:CCT and start a section to voice your opinion. When we have enough people we'll start the cat. --CyclePat 22:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding cities for your country 

message: According to the CIA World Factbook, Western Sahara has no official long form. Why is there an offical long form on the list?  76.205.65.198 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case the factbook is wrong, but this is probably politically motivated. USA does not recognize the SADR. --Soman 20:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Western Sahara is the name of the territory under dispute between Morocco and the Polisario Front. The SADR is the governement in exile of the Polisario, and is only recognized by the African Union. No other organism, the UN, The Arab League, The Islamic Conference, nor any European Country, Nor the USA, Russia, China,...etc. none of these recognize this would-be republic. Actually listing it in this list is objectionable by many.--A Jalil 10:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The African Union is a lot of countries - that's more countries than recognize Taiwan, no? john k 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure every state that's part of AU recognises SADR. Alæxis¿question? 14:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  In fact it's written here that 43 countries recognise SADR. So you're right, it's no worse than Taiwan. Alæxis¿question? 14:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most common English names are used in the list (Germany, not Deutschland) so I think Western Sahara should be under 'W'. Alæxis¿question? 19:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alaexis, the issue here is that what (not sure if it) should be included is the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, under S, and not the territory of Western Sahara which is not a country but a disputed territory. It is not about the use of an alternative name.--A Jalil 19:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then why do such reverts happen? Apparently some people think it should be included here as West Sahara. Alæxis¿question? 19:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The person reverting (koavf) is well known for using Wikipedia as propaganda channel for his pro-Polisario activism. He was even blocked for that disruptive behaviour for over a half year.--A Jalil 20:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Sahara- Official Name? 

message: * 3) parentheses for everyone:Dc76 11:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Q1)

message: *...
:Btw English-language press doesn't exclusively use the Romanian name (Transnistria): BBC prefers Trans-Dniester and The Economist () uses Transdniestria.
: Transnistria is not a local name as well since in Romanian PMR is called Republica Moldoveneasca Nistreana. Alæxis¿question? 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Transdniestria and Trans-Dniester are clearly variants of "Transnistria," and their usage doesn't amount to a very good reason to call the place  "Pridnestrovie." john k 22:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's not just variants - there is a subtle difference since Nistru is a Romanian name of the river and Dniester is an English name (stemming from Ukrainian one). Alæxis¿question? 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is, in fact, the definition of a variant. "Nistru" and "Dniester" are themselves mere variants, as they are clearly etymologically related.  By a  google test on English language sites, excluding wikipedia, there appear to be twice as many hits for "Transnistria" as there  are for "Transdniestria."  There are still fewer hits for "Trans-Dniester" or "Transdniester," and fewest of all for "Pridnestrovie". john k 16:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would add that "Transdniestria" appears to be sufficiently common that, if there is a strong argument against the neutrality of "Transnistria", I'd not particularly care about using one or the other.  I can't see any argument for "Pridnestrovie", which is at least as non-neutral as "Transnistria," and also isn't used in English. john k 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Alaexis is absolutely right that Trans-Dniester and Transdniestria are also used. Should I understand he proposes to use one of them? (b/c then applies what john k just told) What specificlly do you propose, Alaexis? Alaexis is mistaken about "Transnistria" not being the local name. Pridnestrovie is the abreviation of the "official" Pridnestrovskaia Moldavskaia Respublica in Russian. Transnistria is the abreviation of the "official" Republica Moldovenească Nistreană in Romanian. Both languages are official according to the Transnistrian authorities, the second under the name Moldovan. What do you propose, Alaexis? Do you want Republica Moldovenească Nistreană without any abreviation? I might be inclined to agree with that, you'd have a point then. But then, please observe that we'd go away with the English altogether. Please, elaborate. :Dc76 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't proposed anything yet. It was just a comment. Alæxis¿question? 07:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Q2)

message: *2) We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia intended to serve as an initial reference for the general reader (in this particular instance, the general English-speaking reader), rather than experts in the field.  As such, it would help the greatest number of general readers if we rely primarily on the name by which a country/entity is most commonly known/reported in the English-speaking world.  Since a Wikipedia list is most essentially a navigational aid, I see no harm in also listing – following the short and long names (and in order of decreasing frequency of usage) – other versions commonly encountered in English-language publications.  This would serve both as an aid in searches and a confirmation to a reader coming to Wikipedia knowing only the “alternate” name that they’ve found the “right” country name by which to find further information in Wikipedia.  Taking this approach, IMO, a name like “Pridnestrovie” would fall off such an “Other names:” note since it is so rarely encountered, but its inclusion would be nothing anyone need fall on their sword over.  Because problems with transliteration and rough handling on foreign tongues tend to create numerous examples, it might be advisable solely for the purposes of this list to arbitrarily limit the number of alternative names included to, say, 4-5 might be advisable (with the understanding that the issue will be more completely addressed in the main article on that country/entity).  Askari Mark (Talk) 18:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (Q3)