Talk:Quadripoint

message: This article still needs a lot of work. I am planning to write an article tripoint and then come back to quadripoint and fix it up. By way of explanation, this article began as a translation by me of the Dutch article :nl:Vierlandenpunt. However, I don't know any Dutch; I just ran it through a machine translator and then figured it out based on similarity to English and German. One thing I realized is that the Dutch word "Vierlandenpunt" is not the same thing as the English word "quadripoint": a Vierlandenpunt is literally a four-country point, while a quadripoint can be four subnational units (e.g. the U.S. Four Corners). In German, the word is "Vierländereck" meaning "four-country corner"; not quite the same thing as "four-country point" but close.
Among other things the images in this article need to be fixed up but I am hopeless at stuff like that. No need for such a large image of Lake Chad, but it needs to be large enough to see that within the lake are two tripoints rather than a single quadripoint. It would be great to have this image from the Dutch wiki. Also there must be photos of the Sweden/Norway quadripoint mentioned in the article. There's a monument at the Manitoba/Saskatchewan/NWT tripoint which may have become a quadripoint with Nunavut (see article); three photos are on this page. Also I like this photo even though it's a bit out of focus.--Mathew5000 21:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of origin of this article 

message: Looks to me like some kind of borders of Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru all meet at a point.  Going by the various articles, these are not the territorial waters; are they the Exclusive Economic Zone?  It might be worth mentioning in any case. jnestorius(talk) 19:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently these lines are cartographic conveniences with no legal basis quadripoint in the Pacific- No!. jnestorius(talk) 21:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine quadripoint 

message: The external link Local Curiosities has a sister page USA County curiosities which lists a possible quintipoint involving 3 counties of Colorado: Jefferson, Boulder and Broomfield.  This large scale map suggests that where the SW fragment of Broomfield meets the main body, you have (clockwise from north-west) Boulder-Bloomfield(main)-Jefferson(pincer#1)-Bloomfield(fragment)-Jefferson(pincer#2).  However, these detailed maps from the Bloomfield site north-east of quintipoint and south-west of quintipoint suggest either the fragment is an exclave, or it is linked to the parent by a corridor.  (Or possibly by an infinitely thin line? Can they do that??) Anyway, no quintipoint. jnestorius(talk) 00:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-quintipoint in Colorado 

message: Before 19th century tidying up of local boundaries, the stone did mark the convergence of four counties: Oxfordshire, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire, and a detached portion of Worcestershire. FGB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FatGravyBoat (talk • contribs) 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom: Four Shire Stone 

message: I'm not sure about this one. I've looked at the relevant OS 1:50,000 map (sheet 141) and it seems to show  a Rutland/Lincs/Northants tripoint and a Lincs/Cambs/Northants tripoint about 600m apart, with a 2-300m wide 'tongue' of Lincolnshire keeping Rutland and Cambridgeshire(Peterborough UA) apart. FatGravyBoat 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there are just 20 metres between these two counties that are not neighbours. It means that you have four counties within a 10 metre range. If four counties meet within ten metres range, it means that four Local Authority Districts (or equivilants of such), are within 10......Are there other places in the UK where you have four Local Authority Districts (need not be Counties)within less than say 100 metres? --85.164.223.189 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  United Kingdom: Cambs/Lincs/Northants/Rutland quadripoint 

message: Tetrapoint redirects here should we mention this usage?
Since we have trillion, quadrillion, quintillion, sextillion etc, would five or more areas joining at a point logically be called, 5-quintipoint/pentapoint 6-sextipoint/hexapoint 7-septapoint/heptapoint 8-octopoint 9-nonopoint/enneapoint 10-decapoint etc.
Octopoint is mentioned.
Am I talking rubbish or are these ever used? Carlwev (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: According to the several maps and sat images available in Map sources/GeoHack at the coordinates for Jungholz, at a high zoom it shows the area does not form a quadripoint although it is close. see here 
Carlwev (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Googlemaps et al are excellent in their way but not perfect.  Borders are represented as layered overlays onto other GIS data.  They may get confused by a quadripoint if the programmer hasn't worried about handling such anomalies. Layers may be slightly misaligned if different GIS datasets are based on different coordinate systems.  To allay your doubts, check this site which has photos, maps and extracts from the original 1844 and 1850 treaties between the Kingdom of Bavaria and the Austrian Empire which established the quadripoint. jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is also a q-point at Baarle Hertog, but that is also something Google Maps did not entirely catch.--82.134.28.194 (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Jungholz is not a quadripoint

message: I'm thinking of the near misses with Brazilian states, whether any of them is relevant enough for inclusion. The states of Acre, Amazonas and Rondônia almost converge on a point on the Bolivian border; also, the Piauí-Tocantins-Maranhão and Piauí-Tocantins-Bahia tripoints are very close together.
The one which might have the most interest, however, I think would be the Distrito Federal - Minas Gerais border, with the two tripoints with Goiás state (Formosa and Cristalina municipalities) less than three kilometers apart. This DF-MG border is what makes an Eulerian path of Brazilian states possible. Amorim Parga (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil's secondary near misses 

message: I'm too non-plussed by process to launch the AFD myself, but it's time this rank and overweeing pile of original research was tossed to the circular file where it belongs.  "Quadripoint" is an invention of the original page-author and is not a term in topology, geography or in any actual field of study, and many entries are not "real" but "probably" or "near misses" or just, well, downright irrelevant to anything useful or meaningful.  It's an assmebly of geopolitical trivia, and as with what I removed here much of it is purely speculative or false-claims or just so wishy-washy as to be laughable.  Long overdue for an AfD, imo....Skookum1 (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Egull, could you point me toward the Nunavut Enabling Act. A google search on that phrase had zero results. From what I could determine, earlier (see above discussion), Nunavut's boundary was defined both as the Manitoba-Alberta-NWT point and as 102E00'W longitude. As far as I can tell this is contradictory since the established survey point is not precisely on the line of longitude. I got the sense that this is a discrepancy that has simply not yet been resolved. In other words, there may or may not be a quadripoint as the exact boundary has not been determined by survey. If there is an authoritative source saying the boundary is to use the surveyed marker as a base, then great. I wasn't able to find one though. Put a different way, the sources I found said the boundary would touch that point but claimed that point was 102E00'W, which it isn't. Pfly (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Actually, thinking back on this further, I think Nunavut's boundary is defined as being, simply, 102E00'W longitude. No boundary surveys have been done as far as I know, nor did I turn up any legislation providing for boundary surveys. Maybe I missed something, but from what I could find the current legal boundary of Nunavut is 102E00'W, even though there are no survey monuments on the ground to mark it. Someday, perhaps, a boundary survey commission will be established and the line marked on the ground, and it may or may not use the existing Manitoba-Saskatchewan-NWT marker (sorry I wrote Alberta instead of Sask. above). Until there is an official statement on the matter one cannot assume there is a quadripoint here, right? Perhaps there is an official statement and I missed it. But in any case, if the existing marker is not used it is a "near miss"--quite close, but not, strictly speaking, a point. (also, I understand your points about this page, Skookum, but I don't think it should be deleted--I doubt it would pass a deletion review anyway) Pfly (talk) 04:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Scholarly use" - what kind of scholarship?  Cartography?  What scientific or academic purpose does such scholarship have?  And the reason i watch this page is because of the old Four Corners (Canada) page, which asserted that that name was in use and went on to mumbo-jumbo the supposed NT-NU-MB-SK joint border (which as Pfly explains is only illusory because the MB-SK border isn't defined the same way as the NT-NU border is).  BTW that's a potentially very expensive discrepancy, given the escalating value/known supply of kimberlite-related diamonds in teh Great Barrens, might make for an interesting court fight between the two territories some day.  But borders tend to be very difficult to change post-facto.  In any case, there's way too much "near misses" and "probably this and maybe that" wording on this page, and also the notion that a country "enjoys" having a quadripoint - as if there were some kind of prize or benefit.  And Tripoint, well, that's just topological/cartographical reality, nothing remarkable about it.  Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of trivia, and that's all this page is....Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I added some text explaining how Canada's possible quadripoint may or may not actually be one. I'm not sure I understand the things you wrote above, Egull, but it sounds like you are saying the point is "close enough" to count. If so, I would counter by saying that a page on an esoteric topic like this should be quite strict in what is or isn't claimed. The people I've met, online, who are into this topic find it important whether there is an actual, zero-dimensional boundary point. A boundary line segment doesn't cut it, even if it is only a hundred metres or so long. I admit it is trivial to find sources that claim there is a quadripoint between "mbntnusk", as you so succinctly put it, but there are many sources that describe political borders as if they followed precise lines of latitude or longitude, even though almost none do. 
yes thanx if i might insert this here to clarify immediately & then follow below as well
for i dont just mean close enough geographically since that must be an exact fit or its a no go
the close enoughness that is really operative here is purely technical
maps & texts of canada have indicated these 4 corners since 1902 if not earlier
your finding of fault in the latest documentation over the apparent discrepancy between stated geocoordinates & stated geopolitical boundary convergency is vacuous tho both in the absence of geodetic datum & in the presence of monumentation
also it is hard to imagine a ntnu boundary commission not using the established nwt mbsk marker for its point of beginning since it is the only real point on the ntnu boundary at this time
you are just trying to create a technical case or space for the quad not to positively exist within & i appreciate that
but the discrepancies between textual delimitations & demarcations on the ground are common & well known & dont need to be belabored
your latest change in the article text seems to me to carry on a great deal over not much of real significance
yet maybe all this really does need to be made explicit every time it comes up or even potentially arises
Egull (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Hi, I just wrote a lengthy reply before realizing you had edited the article. I was about to post anyway but had an edit conflict. I'm out of time right now, but will post later. Quick point: Google's boundary info is quite generalized and should not be trusted for things like this. Along the US-Canada border there are many places where you can see the actual boundary monuments in the imagery. Google's boundary is often quite off, frequently by hundreds of metres, if not more. And that for the international boundary! More later. Pfly (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I spent way too much time researching this tonight and have ended up more not much wiser than before! I will probably try to trim down your edits to something more terse, maybe tomorrow. It does seem that this is at least a de facto quadripoint/four corners, as things currently stand. The applicable laws all seem to conflate the MT-SK-NWT boundary point with 102E00' longitude, so we might as well go along with it. The level at which these legalities were hashed out was likely far above survey boundary monument concerns. If the border is eventually surveyed it seems that the decision about how to handle details like this will fall to the Surveyor General of Canada, who would apparently be free to decide whether to run the line north from the existing monument or establish a new one nearby. Also, it seems that a survey would only be run if something important came up requiring one--like a valuable natural resource discovery right along the boundary. For all we know it could turn out that large amounts of money would be in the balance of a boundary 100 metres this way or that. But all this is idle speculation. Ill try to write something simple about the point being "essentially" a quadripoint, or something better worded ("pending a final ground survey"? I dunno, I'll think about it). Maybe the whole matter would be best mentioned in a footnote instead of the main text. Anyway, let me post some links here, just to remind myself later in case I lose them: Nunavut Act, Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, Canada Lands Surveys Act, Surveyor General. ...oh and btw I did find the official survey monument database for Canada. Ours is MON 157, ID 674002, rechecked several times, with the latest coords given as N59° 59' 57.98511" W102° 00' 27.24027" (NAD83). According to my calculations, that's just under 500 metres west and slightly south of the point described in law. Pfly (talk) 10:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Heh, yea, I appear to have had my opinion switched around. On the Surveyor General, I didn't see anything that suggested new surveys ought to tie into existing monuments (unless it was a resurvey of a line previously monumented). One of the surveyor's responsibilities is to be as accurate as possible, which would suggest not using a point so obviously off the line proclaimed in law (technology has come a long way since the 1960s!). But then the law also mentions the "tripoint". So it seemed to me a choice between which part of the law to follow to the letter--the meridian or the "tripoint". And if the tripoint monument was used the question arises as to how to shift the line east to the meridian. A sudden jog at some point? A straight line all the way that tilts slightly east? I can imagine a surveyor avoiding those problems by establishing a new monument for base control. But, I don't know, and it's not relevant. Anyway, perhaps I'll get to editing the article later today. Pfly (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: To reply to these points, I agree that a simple statement of a line of latitude or longitude could refer to the entire width of the degree, minute, etc, and that historically this was not uncommon. But I doubt that sense was meant in the Nunavut Act. What was meant, I'd argue, and what has been meant in boundary decrees in Canada and the US since colonial times, was that the boundary should be marked out on the ground as closely as possible to the precise line stated in law, assuming zero minutes, seconds, etc. Certainly that was the goal surveyors have aimed for (with mixed results!). The US PLSS instructed surveyors to take extra care to get the main baselines and corners as close as possible to an ideal point, for example. I think we can assume the Nunavut Act meant 102 degrees exactly, to the best of future surveying abilities. Also, you are quite right about the lack of a specified datum. For that I think it is assumed to be Canada's current official datum for surveys: NAD83CSRS (a Canadian version of NAD83), or at least NAD83. The Nunavut Act does not state the datum, but it does not need to. NAD83CSRS is Canada's official federal datum for surveys--by law at the time the Nunavut Act was implemented. At least that's my understanding. Oh, one last bit. The older tripoint monument 157 was never supposed to be exactly at 60N x 102W. Its location was based on the Dominion Land Survey. From my research last night I think the monument's location was intended to be: Township 127, Range 01, (Dominion Land Survey) Meridian 2 (west), Section 01, NE corner. Whoosh! Meridian 2 is often said to be the 102nd meridian longitude, but it is slightly off. It was created based on the 1st meridian, which was established in Manitoba based on the "westmost settlement" of the time! And anyway, the meridians were marked out by surveys, so don't exactly follow the meridians's ideal. Ok, really gotta run now! Pfly (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Just posted my attempt. Out of time right now. Bbl. Pfly (talk) 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks. And yea, no need to continue going over this. But! Ok, I'll bite just a little. Yes, "the text does expressly equate 60x102 & mbntnusk as being one & the same point", but they are not the same point. I mean, putting aside Nunavut and NWT for a moment, Manitoba and Saskatchewan have established several joint boundary commissions, sent surveyors into the field, placed boundary markers, etc etc, and then more than once enacted laws, affirmed by the federal Canadian government, that the true binding legal boundary forever is the one marked by those survey monuments, whatever their exact location. The northermost is #157. It will always be the boundary between Manitoba and Sask. That boundary is settled and will not be adjusted in any way as a result of Nunavut being split off from the NWT. The new boundary between Nunavut and NWT is a whole other thing. A new boundary commission would be set up if it is to be surveyed on the ground--a commission not involving Manitoba or Saskatchewan. The monuments established by the Man-Sask. commission need not be "inherited". Those monuments are a Manitoba-Sask. issue. Nunavut and NWT do not need to abide by a Man-Sask. agreement. I would expect NWT to fight for a boundary closer to 102W and Nunavut perhaps for running a line from the Man-Sask boundary. After all there must be many thousands of acres at stake in such a choice. On the other hand, Nunavut and NWT are territories, not provinces, so they may not actually have much say on boundary issues.
Anyway, my main point is that I don't think either Nunavut or NWT have inherited the boundary markers set by the Manitoba-Saskatchewan boundary commissions and laws. Perhaps the northern boundaries of those provinces have force for the two territories, but the boundary between the provinces should not. But yes, we can agree to disagree--and I could easily be wrong! Pfly (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: While it's true that the territories have less clout in Canada's federal structure than provinces do, boundaries are still a federal matter and are not negotiable once established, i.e. once they have been surveyed.  Too much bureaucratic and political inertia.  Both SK's and MB's boundaries have changed over time, but they are not likely to again, and there is no reason for the federal government, in subdividing the old Northwest Territories into Nunavut and teh "new" Northwest Territories, to "harmonize" that boundary with the provincial boundaries....in fact I htink the boundary in question, at least the longitudinal part of it , is the old Keewatin District-Mackenzie District boundary, though I'm not sure about that.  And despite the lesser status of the territories within Confederation, the aboriginal aspect to the respective governments is very powerful, and between the Denendeh and the Inuit the territorial division very much reflects their ethnic division and is meant to be such, although of course the 102 boundary is somewhat arbitrary . But shifting it by 400m would mean, also, one hell of a lot of diamonds and other as yet unknown mineral deposits.  Not something that's like to change just to keep "quadripoint enthusaists" happy....Skookum1 (talk) 05:05, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete this article

message: Just did some copyedits. Removed this paragraph about maritime boundaries:
*Likewise beside the point: Some political maps of the South Pacific enclose many island nations within straight lines drawn along parallels of latitude or meridians of longitude, often with a maritime quadripoint indicated for Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and Nauru.One such map is at :Image:Oceania ISO 3166-1.svg This is not a meaningful quadripoint, as the lines are simply cartographic conveniences to indicate which country the islands within it belong to, and are thus merely allocational lines rather than actual international boundaries of territorial waters or Exclusive Economic Zones. 
I rewrote the section to say that this article does not address maritime boundaries and quadripoints at sea. But I have to wonder, why not? The reason given in this text I removed doesn't seem quite right. First, some maritime boundaries are as real as political boundaries on land. I cited a couple on the page. Two, the bit about "not a meaningful quadripoint" makes me want to ask, "says who?" I understand the "mere allocational lines" idea, but I'm not convinced that makes the quadripoints "not meaningful". Maybe not meaningful in terms of political jurisidiction. Even then I'd like a reference explaining just what power such lines do have. Then again, there are obviously many kinds of maritime borders. Maybe some of them are "meaningful" enough to warrant inclusion on this page. I think there are at least two quadripoints at sea on maritime international borders of sovereignty, by treaties. Pfly (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as a "meaningful quadripoint", much less "eez quadripoints".  The original research/synth/vague mumbo-jumbo doodoo just gets deeper and deeper....Skookum1 (talk) 21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oop, I just noticed your series of edits today, Skookum. I had actually been thinking the page was becoming better, with less OR and SYN. But I wouldn't think of working against you, of all people. I'll take a break from the topic. I'm sure there are plenty of better ways I could be spending my time! Pfly (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, ok, one last bit. The maritime boundary text was deleted but I'd like to at least leave a mention of it here. Two/three specific treaties, United States – Venezuela Maritime Boundary Treaty and 1993 United Kingdom – United States Maritime Boundary Treaties. As far as I can tell these defined true international boundaries of sovereignty (treaty texts: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/58824.pdf and http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TREATIES/GBR-USA1993MB.PDF). The first resulted in a so-called "tripoint". The treaty uses the term "trijunction". The US-Venezuela treaty apparently created a "quadripoint", although the treaty only defines the "turning points". Alrighty... Pfly (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maritime boundaries 

message: thanx to all for your care & attention & to metropolitan90 in particular for the very sensible suggestion
here are the makings for footnotes to the few that still survive in that section if anyone who knows how would like to add them
andorra
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.culture.discuss.boundary-point/1124/
bulgaria
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1701/
dominican republic
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/dominican_republic_pol_04.jpg
& the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective provinces
gabon
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1703
jamaica
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/americas/jamaica_pol_2002.jpg
& the wikipedia articles for the 4 respective parishes
libya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lybian_Shabiat_2007_with_numbers.svg
mauritania
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/africa/mauritania_pol95.jpg
uganda
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uganda_Districts.png
vietnam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VietnameseProvincesMap.png
& one that even i consider too enthusiastic & original but which also could be added if anyone is so exuberant
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ffCpWgpWKAMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil+halaib+quadripoint&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting to see how the deletion process turns out before doing anything here. But let me say that even if the page survives it should describe notable quadripoints--ones that are famous and frequently mentioned in reliable sources (WP:RS), or at least are described with the word quadripoint in reliable sources (boundary treaties especially, I'd say). Famous "close calls", if described in reliable sources, would also be good, as I see it--with the point that some points are frequently said to be quadripoints but are in fact not. The obvious example would be the Namibia-Botswana-Zambia-Zimbabwe one. There's an almost point in England (counties) that appears relatively famous. My main point is the need to avoid a list serving no purpose other than being a list. I'm not up on the specific guidelines, but WP:TRIVIA should describe how and why Wikipedia should avoid trivia lists. Points mentioned should be backed up by reliable sources that describe them (and ideally why they are important), and should also be notable in some way other than simply being a quadripoint (see WP:N). By these criteria most of the points you list above seem like trivia to me (unless there are other, better references out there). The Yahoo group "boundarypointpoint" is not a reliable source, nor does it establish notability. A map may be a reliable source but does not establish notability. Just saying--if the page survives deletion, I suggest editors should not allow it to devolve further into trivia and original research. Pfly (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  prima facie quadrisecondary conjunctions with their admittedly slight substantiations 

message: hi olenglish & thanx for your consideration
i understand i can just hit an undo button
but if its only my mainiac newenglish you are rightly objecting to then maybe we can negotiate & or finesse this  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 17:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Egull. Some useful guidance on writing style can be found at the following links, WP:AUDIENCE and WP:TERSE. Also please try to remember to sign your posts so the Autosign bot doesn't keep signing for you. -- œ™ 09:44, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  current lede reversion requesting undo or discussion 

message: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boundarypointpoint/message/1725
Egull (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose this article could benefit from a few more images... Did you take those photos yourself? If so, be sure to mark it with the proper license tag and upload them to commons. See Wikipedia:Uploading images for help on how to do this.  -- œ™ 18:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The Manitoba-Sask-NWT-(maybe Nunavut) monument photo comes from this page. It does not appear to be licensed in a way we can use. One could contact the photographer and ask. A while ago I searched a bit for a photo we could use--perhaps an old one from a Canadian government archive site, but didn't find anything (not that I looked very hard).  Pfly (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I added a map of Monesnet from The Commons. There's also :File:Drilandenpunt.jpg, a photo of the monument that stands at what was the quadripoint there. Today it is only a tripoint, thus the three flags. Not sure if it was worth using. It's just a little survey obelisk with three flags, not obviously meaningful. The map seemed better. Pfly (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggestions for the requested visuals 

message: I removed the re-insertion of the bogus claim that the NT-NU-MB-SK location is called Four corners by a Canadian government website....Egull, if only you'd READ sources instead of thinking they say what you want them to say.  See HERE and note this paragraph:
:The Canadian Tourism Development Corporation (CTDC) is an independent organization involved in the growth and development of the tourism industry in Canada. The CTDC works with industry partners to supply tourism expertise to member organizations, provides marketing opportunities to its members, and provides advice and marketing assistance to best manage tourist facilities and programs.  The CTDC is not in any way affiliated with the Canadian Tourism Commission (CTC), the Tourism Industry Association of Canada (TIAC), the Hotel Association of Canada, or any provincial/territorial marketing organizations.
Oh, and this one too:
:The Canadian Tourism Development Corporation is neither funded nor endorsed by the Federal Government of Canada, or any Provincial Governments of Canada.  CTDC's future depends on the continued support of national businesses in the tourism industry. Supporting the industry to promote research and development is critical to the growth of the tourism industry Canada.
Not affiliated with ANYBODY.  And decidedly NOT a Canadian government usage - no more than the Parliament of Canada "intended to create a quadripoint" or will at some point hold a Boundary Commission just to keep you happy.  Stop fabricating stuff, and stop adding meaningless obscurities like internal boundaries in the Dominican Republic.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa whoa whoa - Skookum1, that was me putting in the "official" and "federal" guff. On review, I was incredibly careless there - I unimaginably misinterpreted the site page when I read it. You are completely right, in fact I'd agree if you removed all mention of it. But the mistake this time round was certainly mine. Franamax (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sorry to take it out on Egull, then.....but it's this kind of fuzziness that has aggraveted me with this page from the start, likewise on certain other pages (like this one) where wiki-clones adn wiki-mutations are used as if RS...there are any number of tourism sites out there; this one seems to be something to do with the Big Players in Candian tourism, whoemver that maybe (Fairmont Hotels maybe, for starters) but it's just a money pit for grants and clearly isn't even a tourism=oriented, or even informative, site.....and no doubt was subjected to lobbying by the bushwhacker promoting this obscure location, possibly for his own tour ops (though that's just a speculation, or rather a speculation on his part....the hordes are not going to beat a path to a mosquito-and-muskeg hellhole like 60-102.Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I originally added that link, with text to the effect of the place being "sometimes called Canada's Four Corners". Some searching on the term seemed to have turned up quite a few places making use of the term. Aside from WP mirrors and the like yes, tourist-type places, along with an assortment of oddball pages. I chose the CTDC one to link because it seemed more serious than most (not because I thought it was a government site--it clearly wasn't). However, I didn't search very hard, and might have read more into the results than warranted--and I could certainly be wrong. All in all, it doesn't matter to me. Just thought I should mention it was me who added that link. Previously the claim was worded a bit differently and cited to http://www.hasbalalake.com/location.html -- I just thought the CTDC page made a better reference. Again though--doesn't matter much to me. Just spent far too long copyediting the Dominion Land Survey page. Can't be bothered with mere quadripoints much today. Pfly (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: moved DLS chat to Talk:Dominion Land Survey. Pfly (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: officialtourism.ca is NOT a Canadian government website

message: I had a look at the two refs used to backup the statement/definition that "a quadripoint is....etc" but they're not definitions; in the second case it's not clear what the context of that phrase is, and whether or not the word "quadripoint" even APPEARS in Geographic Magazine.  As for the main one from the googlebook on the Caprivi strip, there are http://books.google.com/books?id=0-TSdvAg2IgC&pg=PA201#v=onepage&q=quadripoint&f=false THREE instances in that book] (and three only) of the word Quadripoint - two of them as titles, and one using it as a construct - "the quadripoint theory" - as in a theory about whether boundaries at a certain location do intersect, or not.  NEITHER CITATION is relevant to the opening sentence.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "It could be anywhere"...but it's not anywhere, it's the original Four Corners that's talked about, the link is about the mis-survey and the supposed relocation or maybe-relocation.  The Oregonian item is about Four Corners Point, which is not "Four Corners", and it's only a county point (of which there must be dozens if not hundreds in Midwest/Great Plains states).  your other ones are newsgroup citations, not acceptable.  And they also do not establish common usage - or relevance - for the lede; and of coruse they can't be uesd to cite the lede, or anything; you're pretending this is a common word, and should be a common word, but it's just not.  Rarefied newsgroups on diplomacy in the MidEast or whatever that was, and that one usage was just a forum post in response to the item on the UT-AZ-CO-NM marker, and she was really speaking about the same place, just by however many yards off; she wasn't using it in a general sense; she was directly referring to the original point, the UT-NM-AZ-CO boundary convergence.  People behave like it's mystical or somethign; it's just some lines drawn on meridians and parallels and they were designed to land there....maybe it was the Masons huh? Skookum1 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial refs do not say what they're used to cite

message: I can't post teh search results because of the way the USGS/GNIS search engine works, but there are 137 places of various kinds named "Four Corners" or including that as part of the name in USGS.  In CAnada, there are by comparison, searching CGNDB, only three - one each in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick that are unincorporated areas, and in Ontario a "Four Corners Water", which is a bay.  Four Corners certainly needs to be disambiguation, or at least Four Corners (disambiguation) needs to exist since the "most common usage" could be argued to be NM-UT-CO-AZ.  But my wager is most of these places have to do with intersections of streets - but hey, those are "quadripoints" too if that term is applied to everwhere two intersecting lines meet, which is the principle that's been being applied here....there's items also like Four Corners Dam in Idaho.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Four Corners in USGS/CGNDB

message: I don't think there was ever a quadripoint between Arkansas, Missouri, Indian Territory, and Unorganized Territory. As far as I can tell, Indian Territory was not more than an informal name for an unorganized territory until the creation of Kansas Territory. Take a look at the map at Territorial evolution of the United States and the various sources there. It is possible there was a point between some of the Indian Reservations established in that area, but the reservation borders were changed quite a lot over a short period of time before Kansas Territory was created. In short, I just don't see evidence for this. Pfly (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, of those four links: The first seems to show only the changing definition of Arkansas Territory, which was originally much larger, then reduced, then reduced again. When reduced, the land taken away became part of the unorganized territory no different from that to the north, thus there's no quadripoint as far as I can see. That map only shows changes to Arkansas Territory, not any reservation or territory boundaries, no? The second and fourth links do not seem to show a quadripoint at all. The third link returns a "403 Forbidden: You don't have permission to access /images/c/c7/Map_of_Indian_territory_1836.png on this server." Pfly (talk) 04:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Another point: Even if there was a quadripoint between Arkansas Territory, Missouri, and two Indian reservations in unorganized territory, for a few years in the early 19th century, does it really warrant special mention? Seems quite insignificant to me, if it even existed. Pfly (talk) 05:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Territory 

message: thanxx skookum for the comments & changes
& i dont think i imputed our topical term itself to the sources but only the thing we and the term are trying to describe
but how do you figure i did that
& if you really do then at what chronological date are you thinking we may say a quadripoint is or becomes a quadripoint
also whats not right about speaking in terms of the oldest or earliest known instance of a thing at the start of a history section
please elaborate on these points 
but also are you not indulging in anachronism yourself when you describe mercian subdivisions as ancient counties tho they werent yet even shires 
& there seems to be an inadvertent grammatical lapse or something still in need of a fix there too if you would prefer to take care of it yourself 
thanxEgull (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the Gbooks search for the term show it as being used in international law relating to surveys between countries. To describe history it is better to use the contemporary terms where possible - so e.g. discuss the four-shire stone as a meeting point of four territories without claiming it is a "quadripoint" as such. I haven't yet seen a formal definition of the term from an outside source, though I may have missed it somewhere. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: "so i guess we are it / at least until we find something better" - no actually, and I think that is maybe what youe missing. We are not in the business of deciding new definitions. We can only record existing knowledge we've seen published elsewhere. We can't really do anything new. When you read terms like "POV" and "synth", that is what is being talked about. We just can't make our own decisions on what to call things, we have to sort it out from what other people have said in the past. Franamax (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The cite against the UK qaudrapoint is a self-pub, and maps I have examined to date certainly show a quadrapoint. I think we should probably state that there is one, and maybe mention that it has been challenged. Rich Farmbrough, 20:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: shire quadripoints etc

message: since our present moresnet map is slightly confusing because it actually shows a quintipoint can i suggest we switch to this less pretty but clearer possibility
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/TMK_vierlandenpunt.jpg/170px-TMK_vierlandenpunt.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egull (talk • contribs) 22:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: moresnet map

message: "it may not have been used before 1964, by the Geographer of the United States." Taken from the lead. It pretty much makes little to no sense to me. Is it supposed to say the Geographer didn't start using the term until after 1964? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really awkward phrasing 

message: MapQuest shows a quadripoint between four California counties: Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Alameda, and Santa Clara.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.88.174 (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another one shared by Columbia, Washington, Tillamook and Clatsop Counties in Oregon.  We ought to have an article List of quadripoints, but many people argue that it's not encyclopedic. --  Denelson83  05:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  County Quadripoint? 

message: It not clear how a detailed land-survey could answer the question. Surely we would need to go back to the original documents relating to the transfer of the Caprivi Strip to Germany in 1890? And judging by Ian Brownlie's remarks, they did not make the facts clear - probably because at that time nobody thought it mattered ... i.e., noone could foresee that a dispute would actually arise 80 to 90 years later. I do know that in the 1970s, the Rhodesian authorities were quite adamant that it was a quadripoint.--DLMcN (talk) 16:26, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a while since I looked into the topic and edited this page a bit on it. But if I recall right the borders were not defined with enough precision to settle the matter. And that the way international borders are made more precise (at least peacefully) is for the involved nations to set up some kind of international boundary survey commission. Usually there are just two nations in such cases and each surveys the boundary, checking their work against each other and diplomatically working out problems as they arise. If all goes well both sides eventually agree on a single line. Of course they don't always go well. The only example on Wikipedia I could find about a boundary commission dealing with a contentious border is Irish Boundary Commission. A quick skim shows how complicated it was and, apparently, failed in the end. Anyway, something along these lines is, I think, what Brownlie was saying would be required to definitively settle the matter. In this case, however, not two but four nations would have to agree to create and participate in an international boundary commission. It seems unlikely to happen anytime soon, if ever. Anyway, it's been a while, like I said, but I think that was the idea behind how "a detailed land-survey could answer the question". Page 203 of the book cited, puts it, "a joint boundary commission could be established to survey and demarcate this boundary". Pfly (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks ... I did read somewhere that Zimbabwe is even prepared, now, to cede extra land to Botswana, to enable them to build the trans-Zambesi bridge in the best possible location - i.e., the quadruple boundary is no longer the contentious issue which it was in the 1970s (when the diametrically opposite nations were allies - and when each of the four states concerned, was distrustful of its neighbours - and at times even quite hostile towards them!) .--DLMcN (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: [Regarding my rewording of a few minutes ago:] There seems to be no record of any kind of official document (dated 1890, or whenever ... at least, not before year 2000) which specifically stated that there were two separate tripoints 150 metres apart (or any other distance) ... In any event, Ian Brownlie was unable to locate one, despite his best efforts. In 1890, it is possible that nobody thought it was necessary to be specific about it, because the two territories lying to the east, were both under British control. --DLMcN (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zimbabwe/Southwest-Africa//Zambia/Botswana 

message: The Washington State counties of Whatcom and Okanogan and the British Columbia regional districts of Fraser Valley and Okanagan-Similkameen meet at a common point. --  Denelson83  07:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant; regional districts are not counties, they're not the same at all, in purpose or origin; why not include Forest Districts, Land Districts, Environment Regions, Tourism Regions etc.  It's attempts to create/document new intersections of bvoundaries, in this case extant because of landforms defining those boundaries, that make this article totally specious original research and why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Even your ungrammatical usage of the regional district names (without "the" which is who they're used) is not encyclopedic.Skookum1 (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They may not be the same, but they perform exactly the same function:  They serve as a form of local government in areas not covered by municipalities. --  Denelson83  06:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They are similar but definitely do not "perform exactly the same function". One of the primary functions/purposes of US counties are courthouses and the judicial system, and this is completely absent from BC regional districts. There are many other things US counties do that RDs do not. Overall BC RDs are significantly weaker than US counties in many ways. They are more like "planning districts" while US counties are more like regions given local sovereignty not otherwise under state or federal control, but including the power of rule of law (police, courts, jails, etc) power to tax, eminent domain, and so on. Pfly (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

text: That said, RDs are sometimes considered the closest equivalent to US counties. But is this particular point (Whatcom Co-Okanogan Co-FVRD-RD Okanagan-Similkameen) is somehow noteworthy in itself? This page is already bloated with what seems to be an indiscriminate collection of non-notable factoids. Shouldn't this page be about the concept of quadripoints, rather than an attempt to create an exhaustive list? If a list really is desired I'd argue for splitting off to List of Quadripoints, or something, and some heavy pruning here. Pfly (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another binational quadripoint discovered 

message: Clarifying my edit of a few minutes ago, it is perhaps worth repeating what I wrote on 9th July 2011 (above), i.e. -
"... we would need to go back to the original documents relating to the transfer of the Caprivi Strip to Germany in 1890? And judging by Ian Brownlie's remarks, they did not make the facts clear - probably because at that time nobody thought it mattered" - >
> because the three territories to the northeast and southeast were all British, so the various parties did not apparently bother to specify what touched what, and to what precise degree. --DLMcN (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And on 5th May 2012 I wrote: There seems to be no record of any kind of official document (dated 1890, or whenever ... at least, not before year 2000) which specifically stated that there were two separate tripoints 150 metres apart (or any other distance) ... In any event, Ian Brownlie was unable to locate one, despite his best efforts. --DLMcN (talk) 20:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No argument.  Brownlie's overarching take on it was that it was unclear and could not be confirmed either way at the time (and he was, at least with the known geography and facts of 1979, the premier African boundaries expert.)  I was going with hardcopy page 1105 (African Boundaries, 1979) where, under "9. Some conclusions" he reiterates that it is "impossible to reach firm conclusions" but adds in paragraph three of his three paragraph "conclusions":  "There is one final point to be made.  The S. Rhodesia Order in Council 1898......It is inherently unlikely that the intention would have been to employ a road (the Botswana-Zimbabwe Hunter's Road boundary)....-as the basis for an alignment which would lead to a quadripont (or any other union of frontiers) which created a barrier to north-south communcations."  He then says that they were all internal British colonial boundaries at the time, so the alignment might have had a "certain artificiality."  Anyway, that's where I got the "unlikely" from, but since it addresses just one of several arguments in his "conclusions", I can see your point for leaving it out. DLinth (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kazungula 

message: ....and continues to grow with more and more specious statistics; even the title is OR.  An AFD has been tried here before; jejune arguments were used to keep it, it's establishing currency for a term that has no place in geography nor any relevance in the real world.  Wikipedia should not be used to create reality/analysis, it should only mirror legitimate subjects.  This is not one; and it's being used as a citation for the sources it cites......Time to go, kiddies, this is a playpen of irrelevance....Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for an AFD again; this article is wholly OR

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Quadripoint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100708015952/http://en.poehali.org:80/maps/100k--l34-074.html to http://en.poehali.org/maps/100k--l34-074.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100822131200/http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/skogensparlor.aspx to http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/episerver4/templates/skogensparlor.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah all meet at a common point: does this mean that Arizona and Colorado border each other? or Utah border New Mexico? --Holapaco77 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If one uses the mathematical concept of a point and a line, they do not touch, as those are infinitely small objects. However, most sources I've read (since I was a child and before the internet existed) claim they do touch as a matter of practicality. It is easily possible to walk from New Mexico to Utah without setting foot in Colorado or Arizona (but granted, impossible to do so without violating their "airspace").Dave (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Arizona border Colorado? (or Utah border New Mexico?) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Quadripoint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514110613/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS030.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS030.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511092539/http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1990/world12.txt to http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/1990/world12.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120812001647/http://www.moresnet.nl/english/geschiedenis_en.htm to http://www.moresnet.nl/english/geschiedenis_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090624020217/http://kart.statkart.no/adaptive2/default.aspx?gui=1&lang=2 to http://kart.statkart.no/adaptive2/default.aspx?gui=1&lang=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044748/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/IBS018.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS018.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Just curious, why was Ilemi Triangle deleted?  Jeff in CA (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ilemi Triangle 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: It's pretty clear reading this talk page that this article was quite a battle ground in the 2007-2012 time frame. While not dismissing anybody's opinion, the following is quite obvious to me
*Regardless of weather this is a term recently invented or not, the article is here to stay
*All of this edit warring has left the article in bad shape. 
*The worst is the lead, which is a collection of notes (including a hat-note that points to the wrong article) about the complexities of the subject, without providing any useful information about what this subject actually is. 
As such I would like to take 15 minutes to clean up the lead. I assure the warring factions my edits are not picking sides, just acknowledging the lead is in bad shape and cleaning it up to what I see as the least painful way to do it. Dave (talk) 17:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article clean up 

message: Looking at the GIS mapping tool by the Mexican Geological Survey here, the existence (and thus inclusion in the list) of the Mexico quadripoint seems somewhat dubious. The map suggests that these coordinates are actually the northern of two tripoints that are separated by some distance, apparently over 10 kilometers. While there is a marker at the given coordinates (based on photos, including the Wikimapia content provided as a reference for this entry), I can't find anything that confirms that the marker is there to indicate a quadripoint. Is "mojonera de los cuatro estados" actually the name of this marker, or is this something that's been propagated based on the content of this article and/or the Wikimapia entry (which of course is also user-generated content)? Anything I find appears to be mirroring one or the other. The use of the word "effectively"  to describe the presumptive quadripoint seems weasely as well: either this is a quadripoint or it isn't, and there needs to be something to suggest that it is to merit inclusion. Otherwise, the entire mention of it is violating verifiability. --Kinu t/c 06:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico quadripoint existence 

message: Either this article has been copied from https://civilstuff.com/what-is-a-quadripoint/?utm_content=cmp-true or vice versa, but someone is behaving dishonestly here! 92.40.197.84 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This copying of Wikipedia content is not "dishonest"; it is in conformity with Wikipedia's licensing. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism 

message: :The South Pole combines two parcels of unclaimed land with two parcels of Antarctic Treaty regulated territory (which have been variously claimed, disputed, recognized, ignored, disowned, and reclaimed as national sovereign territory by Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Norway).
I love the phrasing of the "variously claimed, disputed, recognized, ignored, disowned, and reclaimed" text (and there were more - the US and German, but I think the first section here is a little misleading - the entire area is "Antarctic Treaty regulated territory", regardless of the existence of the claims.
:The void areas meet the polar quadripoint between the 90th and 150th meridian west longitude (Marie Byrd Land) and, again, between the 20th meridian west and 45th meridian east (this latter sector, of indefinite extent, owing to the Norwegian exclusion of the South Pole from Queen Maud Land), while sovereign or treaty-regulated areas converge at the polar quadripoint in the two intervals between the void areas.
The situation has got a bit simpler since this was written (I think in about 2011?) - in 2015 the Norwegian territorial claim (Queen Maud Land) was defined to stretch as far as the Pole, rather than having an undefined southern boundary as was previously the case, leaving only one "void area" on the continent. I think this means (going clockwise from the meridian) there is now Norway, Australia, France, Australia, New Zealand, unclaimed, Chile only, Chile/UK, Chile/UK/Argentina, UK/Argentina, UK only. So 7-9 distinct claims (depending if you count "unclaimed" & if you count Australia twice), 11 if you count all the overlaps as distinct. 
I'll try to think of a way to reword this but I'm conscious I'm not quite familiar with the terminology here. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica 

message: The borders between Cameroon, Chad, Nigeria and British Cameroon (not 'UK') did not form a quadripoint because the intersection of the Nigeria-Cameroon-British Cameroon borders is about 20 miles/32 km south of the intersection of the Nigeria-Chad-Cameroon borders. In other words, the borders of the four territories in question formed two tripoints separated by about 32 km.
This is clearly shown in the official map produced by the British-administered government survey department in Lagos in 1949. The map is in Wikimedia commons, here: 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Map_of_British_Cameroons_in_1949.jpg.
And by the way, British Cameroon was never part of the United Kingdom, so using 'United Kingdom' in the name of 'quadripoint', and in the heading, is wrong, it should have been 'British Cameroon' as per the name of the Wikipedia article on the territory.
I suggest the section be corrected in the same way as the Kazungula 'quadripoint' was. Strayan (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cameroon–Chad–Nigeria–United Kingdom was not a quadripoint