Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:23, 2 November 2006

Latest revision as of 19:37, 26 August 2025

Line 1:

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/header}}

{| class="infobox" width="270px"

{{talkheader|sc=WT:COUNTRIES}}

|-

{{WikiProject banner shell|

!align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px|Archive]]<br/>[[Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page|Archives]]

{{WikiProject Countries}}

----

}}

|-

{{User:MiszaBot/config

| [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive1|Archive 1]]

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}

| [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive2|Archive 2]]

|maxarchivesize = 150K

|-

|counter = 14

| [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive3|Archive 3]]

|minthreadsleft = 4

| [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive4|Archive 4]]

|algo = old(60d)

|-

|archive = [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive5|Archive 5]] %(counter)d

}}

| [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive6|Archive 6]]

|-

{{archive box|bot=MiszaBot II|age=120|

| [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive7|Archive 7]]

*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 1|1]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 2|2]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 3|3]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 4|4]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 5|5]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 6|6]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 7|7]]

|

*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 8|Archive 8: Jul – Dec 2006]]

|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->

*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 9|Archive 9: Jan – Jul 2007]]

*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 10|Archive 10: Jul 2007 – Dec 2010]]

* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 11|Archive 11]]

* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 12|Archive 12]]

* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 13|Archive 13]]

*[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 14|Archive 14]]

}}

<!-- put new messages at the bottom -->

== [[:Category:Flag template shorthands]] has an [[WP:RFC|RFC]]==

==RE: Subdivisions and names==

It would be better to have the section titled as "Administrative Divisions" for each and every country, rather than the title as the name of the respective division/subdivision - only for the main page. Corresponding pages could then be the name of the appropriate division/subdivision. Would you agree? I only speak from the standpoint of standardization... with a small input from working with the UN. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:Wouldn't it have been better if you had discussed it here before making mass changes to the pages? This apart from the minor MoS violation of having "Division" in upper case. [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

::I think the point is that I DIDN'T KNOW until now, but the changes have been happening. As stated, the wiki project isn't an "end all, be all" of things - and for standardization ease, it would make more sense to call it "Administrative Divisions". As for the "minor MoS violation" you mention - again, it isn't an "end all, be all". I can definitely show you in an official MoS that it is proper to title as such, not to leave a lower case name in the title. So two things - one, this discussion comes at a time when the wiki project has been pointed out to me, and two, same with the "MoS" you mention. Be careful with assumptions, as your "wouldn't it have been better..." statement suggests. I work with this type of data on a daily basis, thus, I think it qualifies for me to have at least an input. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Well, the purpose of a Wikiproject is to standardise related topics. Considering the magnitude of the change, consensus must be sought to effect the changes; that's part and parcel of wikipedia functioning. (See [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]) Secondly, I don't believe that I have mentioned anywhere above that it is an "end all, be all" as you have put it. Neither have I denied your right to post proposals. Your [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rarelibra contributions] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uzbekistan&diff=prev&oldid=65767157 Uzbekistan], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greece&diff=prev&oldid=65545099 Greece], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=prev&oldid=65544351 Ethopia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bulgaria&diff=prev&oldid=65762206 Bulgaria], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=India&diff=prev&oldid=65544000 India]) suggest that you have made unilateral changes before waiting for more input from the community.

::::Correct, however - when one is working with Wiki on a daily basis - as I have for over a year now, and making additions or changes, etc. without the knowledge of such projects, well, you can't point a finger of 'blame and shame'. Fact is, I have helped a lot in having to touch almost every country page as I go, and helping to alphabetize, add wiki links, correct spelling, correct format... the list goes on and on. In the meantime, you accuse me of a blanket-style effort like my only motive is to visit these pages just to change this. As far as the "magnitude" of the change - remember, Wiki is a living and breathing environment, full of constant change. Be very careful as to take personally my edits of standardization as I work with the pages on a daily basis (and it makes sense for the user to find the information quickly, as is one of the reasons I need such). A user may not know right away the name of the division of a country, and it is quite easy to find as an "administrative division". Give me credit, please. A good example of this, too, is the fact that I wasn't aware of such a wiki project until now (this week). Other users of the 'community' you speak of may also not know. Just FYI - your verbage of "unilateral changes" and "waiting for more input" etc DO speak of "end all, be all" solutions. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

::As for the Manual of Style, please see this: [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wording]]: ''Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations".'' Regards, [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::Just for your benefit, I will go ahead and get you the proper reference of rules of style in regards to headings and such. I worked as an editor for several years for US Government publications, so again - I know a little bit about style. 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::So here you go:

3.49. In matter set in caps and small caps or caps and lowercase, capitalize all principal words, including parts of compounds which would be capitalized standing alone. The articles a, an, and the; the prepositions at, by, for, in, of, on, to, and up; the conjunctions and, as, but, if, or, and nor; and the second element of a compound numeral are not capitalized. (See also rule 8.129.)<BR>

8.129. To enclose titles of addresses, articles, awards, books, captions, editorials, essays, headings, subheadings, headlines, hearings, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), operas, papers, short poems, reports, songs, studies, subjects, and themes. All principal words are to be capitalized.<BR>

3.51. In a heading set in caps and lowercase or in caps and small caps, a normally lowercased last word, if it is the only lowercased word in the heading, should also be capitalized.

:::As you can see, the CORRECT MoS is to capitalize ALL in a heading or subheading. The Wiki MoS is INCORRECT, according to proper references. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

:::And one other thing for you to READ and REMEMBER - this is directly from the Wiki MoS - "Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.". This also goes for Wiki projects - "Remember that everything below are guidelines. Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way. However, having the same "look & feel" for the country articles would be great." So please - stop sharpshooting me, and concentrate on those people out there who exist only to ruin and vandalize our joint efforts to make Wiki a great place. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like this idea that all country articles shoudl have a standardised "Administrative divisions" heading. It is much better to have a heading specific to the country. This attempt at standardisation seems to have been done without consensus, and so changes to the project guidelines shoudl be reverted. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:It's not clear and "user friendly" to use the country-specific heading, as it is easier and clear when looking at the administrative division/subdivision of each country, whereby there is a definition of what it is called, how many, and background information, etc. Just FYI read above - "Remember that everything below are guidelines. Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way. However, having the same "look & feel" for the country articles would be great." Also reference the statement "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two points here - firstly that I disagree with your unilateral change to the guideline here. It may only be a guidleine, but it does purport to represent some sort of community view and so should not be changed without consensus. I find it more user-friendly to use the country-specific heading, at the very least where the names of the subdivisions are English words. Secondly, despite the statements that you draw my attention to, ''you'' are trying to enforce your idea of a standard against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Please stop. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:I fully support JPD's position.--[[User:Cyberjunkie|cj]] | [[User talk:Cyberjunkie|talk]] 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

:Words like 'unilateral' are funny, really. I mean, I was working on the titles for a while and then suddenly there was this 'consensus' and my work started to be changed around - so who was or is right and who was or is wrong? And by what authority? Think about the common user going to a country page - it is easiest to access the information by finding it in a common place. YOU may find it 'more user friendly' to be country-specific, but can you tell me what the administrative division name is for [[Seychelles]] or [[Mongolia]], for example? See the point. I am not trying to 'enforce' anything, I am trying (like many others) to standardize. And please don't 'order' people around, thank you. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

::You made some changes which were intended to be helpful, and some of them were reverted because others did not agree. There is nothing wrong with any of that, and it is a matter of opinion, so there is no point talking about right and wrong. Changing the guideline is another matter. The guideline is only a guideline, so noone should be enforcing either version of it (note that standardising according to a guideline and enforcing a guideline are exactly the same thing). The guideline should, however, reflect a close to consensus view, rather than one person's opinion of what is right. Otherwise, there is no point to having any guidelines at all. Yes, I do think it is more user-friendly that way, and I find the [[Seychelles]] page better than the [[Mongolia]] page for that reason, even though I didn't know what the divisions were called before looking at them. I am not claiming to be right, or even to have a consensus, simply disagreeing with your changing and pointing out that you are not indisputably right and do not have a consensus for your change. [[User:JPD|JPD]] ([[User talk:JPD|talk]]) 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

== Territorial limits ==

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

== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Footers]] ==

I have applied {{tl|Navigation Template}} to some of the navigational templates (mostly continental ones). I think other such templates would benefit from this format.

I haven't invented anything, this format was used for templates for europe asia etc, I just collected the elements into a single generic template for easier use (so as to evade the usage of a number of easy to break <nowiki><div>s</nowiki>).

--<small>[[User:Cool Cat|Cat]] [[User talk:Cool Cat|out]]</small> 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

== Scotland peer review ==

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

== Hi ==

In want to join this wikiproject and it said leave a comment on the talk page, well here it is! <b><font color="green">[[User:Jamie_C|Jamie]]</font><font color="black">|</font></b><i><font color="red">[[User_Talk:Jamie_C|C]]</font></i> [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_States.svg|22px|]] 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Mass content adding to small Wikipedias ==

Hi, I am starting again to work on the project [[:m:Mass content adding]]. One of the points of the project is to use templates from bigger Wikipedias (in general, from English Wikipedia), to localize them and to make bot-commiting to the small Wikipedias. For that purpose, I think that countries should be the first pilot-project. --[[User:Millosh|millosh]] ([[:sr:Разговор са корисником:Милош|talk (sr:)]]) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the developed situation I think that parts of that project should be leaded by projects like this. I.e., if you make some changes to the structure of template and/or data, you should commit that changes into multilingual project, too. --[[User:Millosh|millosh]] ([[:sr:Разговор са корисником:Милош|talk (sr:)]]) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Project ''Mass content adding'' is not developed yet and I would like to hear your input, at least. There are a number of open questions related to organization of localization. Also, I am sure that some communities from bigger Wikipedias want to cooperate, too. For example, this would mean that all Wikipedias which participate in such project would have one, central organized templates for countries and data inside of that templates; etc. --[[User:Millosh|millosh]] ([[:sr:Разговор са корисником:Милош|talk (sr:)]]) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to get some help from some of you related to the countries because I am sure that you are much better introduced into this field then me. --[[User:Millosh|millosh]] ([[:sr:Разговор са корисником:Милош|talk (sr:)]]) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me via [[User talk:Millosh|my talk page]] or, better, here. --[[User:Millosh|millosh]] ([[:sr:Разговор са корисником:Милош|talk (sr:)]]) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

:One more information (I was a long time out of this project and I forgot that I made some text about countires there): look at [[:m:Mass content adding/Countries of the world]]. --[[User:Millosh|millosh]] ([[:sr:Разговор са корисником:Милош|talk (sr:)]]) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

== Please add me ==

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

== Hello! ==

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

== Location Maps ==

A few days ago, I added a newly created series of maps to wikipedia, showing the ___location of European countries. The new maps are of higher quality than the old ones and I am of the opinion that they should replace the old ___location maps in the country infoboxes. The maps are available for all EU states and will soon be available for every other European state. The maps are already in use on the German wikipedia.

Examples

(Old Maps):

<gallery>

Image:BlankMap-Europe.png

Image:LocationGermany.png

Image:LocationNorway.png

Image:LocationIceland.png

</gallery>

(New Maps):

<gallery>

Image:Europe ___location.png

Image:Europe ___location GER.png

Image:Europe ___location NOR.png

Image:Europe ___location ISL.png

</gallery>

But the new wikipedia user [[User:Cogito ergo sumo]] seems to be of an other opinion and reverted the implementation of the maps with the following comment:

''(revert: while new maps look nicer, restoring locator maps that are consistent among all country infoboxes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Article_template)''

As a consequence of that the below shown discussion started. I would ask the other members of this project here to state their opinions to that and I'd be grateful to have a final decision on the subject whether those maps also shall be used in the English wikipedia - or not. --[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

'''Copied Discussion'''

______________________

''(revert: while new maps look nicer, restoring locator maps that are consistent among all country infoboxes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Article_template)''

:Of course the new maps are not consistent to the old ___location maps, since they are nicer and more exact than their predecessors. The only thing you achieve by reverting those changes is preventing innovation and improvement in wikipedia. If all users thought that way, wikipedia would have to use the same old and bad pictures and materials for the next two decades, just because of their consistency among each other. Your argument of consistency among all infoboxes is already a very weak one for a revert, and becomes even weaker considering that those new maps with their common style are consistent to each other. Further they are available for all 25 EU states and they will soon be available for the whole continent. --[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

::Hello! Thank you for your note; I'm sorry to have reverted your contributions, but your argument is not wholly compelling. While your maps are potential improvements on the preceding locator maps, they are not necessarily innovations. As with any publication, standards are in place to ensure a degree of consistency for users when perusing Wp: the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries|country wikiproject]] prescribes a certain layout for all country infoboxes (with consistent locator maps); this is no different than an almanac or other compendium. I see little reason to treat EU constituents differently; if so, perhaps it would be better to [[Wikipedia:Blank maps|use the maps or variants already available]]. I also note that at least one other Wikipedian reverted your map change (at least for the UK); being bold notwithstanding, perhaps you should join the wikiproject, propose and discuss a new map style/change before going ahead and implementing wholesale changes that may not be agreeable and reverted again.

::If you require assistance, please feel free to ask. I hope this helps. [[User:Cogito ergo sumo|Cogito ergo sumo]] 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Well those new maps do not only include the EU countries but all European states (for examples see:[[:Image:Europe ___location CH.png]]). And I don't think that I'll require assistance. As far as I could see, you are quite new to wikipedia, so I should ask you that question. furter I should point out that reverting articles in that number without dicussing the topic before may be regarded as great impoliteness and as sort of vandalism. --[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes: I'm fairly new but have joined the country wikiproject. That being said, I was equally bold and restored the ''status quo'' for reasons stated (and apologise for not discussing it beforehand): your maps are not agreeable to not only me but at least [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom&diff=73464590&oldid=73426369 one other editor], so I'm not totally off base here. Through prior discussion, you may get buy-in and suggestions for improvement. Locator maps are not just to exhibit countries in and outside Europe/the EU (noted) but to exhibit territories in relation to others around them -- yours are too Eurocentric; for example, some of your maps exhibit territories ''less'' clearly than do the other maps, particularly for smaller territories (e.g., Luxembourg) or those on the periphery of Europe (e.g., Greece, Malta). They are also quite large and (IMO unnecessarily) detailed for locator maps and can be compressed. And I have provided sufficient edit summaries and discussion regarding this, so accusations of impoliteness and vandalism are non-starters. [[User:Cogito ergo sumo|Cogito ergo sumo]] 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

__________________________

<BR>--[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

:As an outside observer I do think it is about time that the country locator maps were replaced, they are many years old and of low quality. Nonetheless, any change to 200 extremely high profile articles needs some discussion before it is introduced. We need better maps, but if we are going to change them let us ensure they are the best possible. I do have a couple problems with the orange ones. The grey outline of the continent follows a weird mix of geographical and political boundaries, and will lead to yet another round of the "what is Europe" debate. It would also be better if the maps did not have the distortion caused by a mercator like projection. The map is also quite inadequate for smaller countries like Luxembourg and Malta. - [[User:SimonP|SimonP]] 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::Actually there's a little error in the grey outline, Cyprus lies of course in asia and should be white on the generic map, I'll correct that issue. If considered absolutely necessary I could create special maps for the English Wikipedia without that grey outline and outline of the EU in locations maps of EU states. The main goal is to get rid of those ugly old and grey maps. Regarding those tiny states it would be possible to create special enlarged versions with a small cut-out box containing the europe-map, similar to old maps like [[:Image:LocationGermany.png]] which show an enlarged section of the continent and the world map in a small box. --[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

::: ''If considered absolutely necessary I could create special maps for the English Wikipedia without that grey outline and outline of the EU in locations maps of EU states.'' What? Surely it would be best to remove such supranational boundaries (such as the EU and different continents), and have land as one colour, sea as another and the specific country highlighted. These maps should be uniform across the whole of wikipedia!! [[User:Rob.derosa|Rob.derosa]] 10:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

:::I for one support [[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] in his effort to get rid of those ugly old and grey maps. Since maps are available for all EU member states why dont we start with those. I also agree with the idea of creating special enlarged versions with a small cut-out box containing the europe-map for the tiny states. [[User:Aristovoul0s|Aristovoul0s]] 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

::::Then we should make a decision. Here a last brief overview on all the maps which would replace the old ones:

===Non-EU states===

<gallery>

Image:Europe ___location.png|Basic Map

Image:Europe ___location ALB.png|Albania

Image:Europe ___location BHG.png|Bosnia-Herzegovina

Image:Europe ___location BLR.png|Belarus

Image:Europe ___location BUL.png|Bulgaria

Image:Europe ___location CHE.png|Switzerland

Image:Europe ___location CRO.png|Croatia

Image:Europe ___location ISL.png|Iceland

Image:Europe ___location MDA.png|Moldavia

Image:Europe ___location MKD.png|Macedonia

Image:Europe ___location MNO.png|Montenegro

Image:Europe ___location NOR.png|Norway

Image:Europe ___location ROM.png|Romania

Image:Europe ___location SRB.png|Serbia

Image:Europe ___location UKR.png|Ukraine

</gallery>

===EU states===

<gallery>

Image:Europe ___location EU.png|European Union

Image:Europe ___location AUT.png|Austria

Image:Europe ___location BEL.png|Belgium

Image:Europe ___location CYP.png|Cyprus

Image:Europe ___location CZE.png|Czech Rep.

Image:Europe ___location DEN.png|Denmark

Image:Europe ___location ESP.png|Spain

Image:Europe ___location EST.png|Estonia

Image:Europe ___location FIN.png|Finland

Image:Europe ___location FRA.png|France

Image:Europe ___location GER.png|Germany

Image:Europe ___location GRE.png|Greece

Image:Europe ___location HUN.png|Hungary

Image:Europe ___location IRL.png|Ireland

Image:Europe ___location ITA.png|Italy

Image:Europe ___location LAT.png|Latvia

Image:Europe ___location LIT.png|Lithuania

Image:Europe ___location LUX.png|Luxemburg

Image:Europe ___location MLT.png|Malta

Image:Europe ___location NED.png|Netherlands

Image:Europe ___location POL.png|Poland

Image:Europe ___location POR.png|Portugal

Image:Europe ___location SLO.png|Slovenia

Image:Europe ___location SVK.png|Slovakia

Image:Europe ___location SWE.png|Sweden

Image:Europe ___location UK.png|United Kingdom

</gallery>

===Small states===

<gallery>

Image:Europe ___location ANR.png|Andorra

Image:Europe ___location LIE.png|Liechtenstein

Image:Europe ___location MCO.png|Monaco

</gallery>

--[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So shall they be used in the English wikipedia (as it is already the case in the German and French wiki) or not?

:As there seems to be (after waiting almost 2 weeks) no objection against the implementation of the new maps and due to the fact that the user "Cogito Ergo Sumo" who prevented the implementitions with his contraproductive reverts has been banned because of malicious actions and socket-puppetery I'll just implement them now. --[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a new map of [[Uruguay]] available? [[User:Wesborland|Wesborland]] 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as [[Uruguay]] is not part of Europe and the new maps just deal with the ___location of European states there is no new map available. --[[User:David Liuzzo|David Liuzzo]] 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

:Personally I like the new maps, I have just some concerns regarding the small countries: The orange magnification (If you see what I mean) is confusing. But I don't know how to make it better to be honest -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] ^{[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]} 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am of the other opinion in that I feel the green on grey of the other maps give a great contrast if you know what I mean. Also I don't understand why the EU is highlighted if your new images become the norm will you also highlight [[NAFTA]] or the [[African Union]] in the case of Africa? [[User:Fabhcún|Fabhcún]] 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:mmm you got a point... Being European that didn't shock me. I don't know... But the European Union is a strong entity in Europe so that makes sense having it. -- [[User:Lucasbfr|lucasbfr]] ^{[[User talk:Lucasbfr|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]} 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

::I echo the concerns of [[User:Fabhcún|Fabhcún]]: Why do you need to hightlight the EU? Keep it simple and just hightlight the country that the article is about. New maps would be nice but I don't think that only Europe should get new maps I hope that you are working on other countries and can convert them over quickly after a concensus is reached. &mdash;[[User:MJCdetroit|MJCdetroit]] 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

:::'''New ___location maps''' I just stumbled upon this after editing a couple of Europe maps. I'm opposed to the new maps for a few reasons: they are inconsistent with other ___location maps (not just of countries), they arbitrarily include the EU (why not EFTA?), and they are simply visually less appealing. -[[User:Koavf|Justin (koavf)]]·[[User talk:Koavf|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]·[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]] 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth has the EU been highlighted in all of the European maps? The map is going to be a locator map of that particular country within the world, not within the EU. The EU highlighting should be removed (who decided if it should be the EU or NATO etc that should be highlighted - it would just be easier without). And I must say I prefered the old ones, the orange and blue doesnt look particularly attractive. Also should continental-distinctions be present on these maps also? It just seems like your trying to pack too much information onto one little map, when all it is there for is the ___location of that particular country. [[User:203.114.140.222|203.114.140.222]] 09:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) [This was by me [[User:Rob.derosa|Rob.derosa]] 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ]

I completely agree with the above sceptical comments. These maps look extremely uggly and doesn't fit at all with the light-colored Monobook scheme. What we need are high-res SVG versions of the older maps. I also agree that the EU highlighting is not neutral. /[[User:Slarre|Slarre]] 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:I fully disagree, and think that the new maps are a significant improvement. The European Union presumably has been highlighted to demonstrate in which jurisdictions the common [[European Union law]] applies. The old maps are an inferior substitute and look very unprofessional.--[[User:Tekleni|Tekleni]] 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

'''The old maps were much better, the nation in the article should be proudly placed in the center of the map'''--[[User:Hamparzoum|Hamparzoum]] 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:The old maps were ugly. These new ones look very professional and are much better. Call a vote or something...--[[User:Eupator|Eupator]] 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

::It depends on the country. A small edit dispute at [[Belarus]] is going on now due to the map issue; I say that the current map of Belarus (as displayed above) is plenty big for the article infobox. It's big enough to stand out. But, for small states like the ones displayed here, the old maps should be used until we get some kind of zoom function in. [[User:Zscout370]] <small>^{[[User_talk:Zscout370|(Return Fire)]]}</small> 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree that the grey/orange/blue colours are as ugly as sin, I much prefer the white/grey/green. Also, it's kind of hard to see some of the smaller countries with these maps. I've got no problem with new maps, I just don't like these ones. [[User:Lankiveil|Lankiveil]] 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

== What is a "Country"? ==

Some "country" articles are about geographical regions. According to our NPOV rules this means that the history must give appropriate weight to all the people who have lived in the region.

Other "country" articles are about contemporary Nation States which are dominated by a particular racial group. Their history sections are the history of the dominant race. The history of other races ("aboriginals") is relegated to a subsidiary article.

In the latter case, how does our template treat the non-dominant race? [[User:Fourtildas|Fourtildas]] 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

:A country is defined by its government, not its race. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

::And when it's dominant race, whether majority or minority, defines its government? Think apartheid... [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

:::The article on [[South Africa]] is about South Africa - its government, its people, etc. I don't understand what anyone is getting at here. Should the article on South Africa have (before Apartheid ended) focused only on the whites, with a separate article for the blacks? Or what? Establish what you and fourtildas are talking about, please. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

::::I am responding merely in defense of Fourtildas said compared to your response. How can you possibly state such a thing... "a country is defined by its government". So you are stating that, since I am American, that I am defined by my GOVERNMENT? That the US is defined by a bunch of cowboys throwing the war machine around everywhere? I THINK NOT. Nor did the South African government - especially when they were all white - ever 'define' the country. Unless you think that apartheid was a 'fair definition'. Trouble is, statements like yours lead to only a few things... prejudice, racism, and conflict. I think Fourtildas is merely trying to open up the articles to a broader spectrum of definition and understanding. So along the lines of your 'definition', do you think that if, say, the Hutus were to eliminate all of the Tutsis, that the new Hutu government would 'define' the country? Or hey - even better - do you think a puppet government in Iraq will now 'define' the country? I HOPE not. I don't wish to continue this - it seems illogical to even discuss. [[User:Rarelibra|Rarelibra]] 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::A government is the single defining aspect of a country, yes. If there were two distinct but equal governments in a region... then there would be two countries. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

==[[History of the Netherlands]]==

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

<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">[[File:Ambox warning orange.svg|48px|alt=|link=]]</div>'''[[:Category:Flag template shorthands]]''' has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the '''[[Category talk:Flag template shorthands#RfC on overlinking|discussion page]]'''.<!-- Template:Rfc notice--> Thank you.

==Native name/long name of the Netherlands==

Shouldn't the [[Netherlands|infobox here]] say "''Nederland''/The Netherlands" and not "''Koninkrijk der Nederlanden''/Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'm just wondering because [[Netherlands]] ([[nl:Nederland]]) is not the same as the [[Kingdom of the Netherlands]] ([[nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden]]), it is only the European part. &mdash;[[User:MC Snowy|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">MC Snowy</span>]] ([[User talk:MC Snowy|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/MC Snowy|contribs]]) 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

== WikiProjectMain Belgiumarticle fixation ==

Pls see [[Talk:Switzerland#Removal of cannabis consumption and mental health data from 2012]] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 04:50, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

== India FAR ==

just wanted to inform you that this project has a new (actually, ressurected) child, i.e. [[WP:BELG|WikiProject Belgium]]!

I have nominated [[India]] for a [[Wikipedia:Featured article review/India/archive4|featured article review here]]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article?|featured article criteria]]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are [[Wikipedia:Featured article review|here]].<!--Template:FARMessage--> [[User:JDiala|JDiala]] ([[User talk:JDiala|talk]]) 08:28, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

--[[User:Stevenfruitsmaak|Steven Fruitsmaak]] <small>([[User_talk:Stevenfruitsmaak|Reply]])</small> 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Accessibility issues on a WikiProject meta-page ==

== Major code cleanup request ==

See [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject FlagCountries/Article Template#Majorattributes]] codeshould cleanuphave requestalt text on the icons in the table so they can be read by screen readers, per [[WP:ACCIM]]. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<subb style="color:#77b">Laundry</b>→<fontb style="color:#975612fb0">[[UserPizza</b><b style="color:AzaToth|A#b00">03</b>]] ([[WPUser talk:EALaundryPizza03|<fontspan colorstyle="greencolor:#0d0">zd</fontspan>]][[UserSpecial:AzaTothContribs/LaundryPizza03|a]]</font><fontspan style="color:#3255960bf">[[User_talk:AzaToth|Toth]]c̄</font></subspan>]]) 2004:4654, 619 OctoberJuly 20062025 (UTC)

:[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Article attributes]] is a redirect the leads right back to this page. Which page did you mean? [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 13:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

== National anthem of Antigua and Barbuda ==

== [[Template talk:Europe#This and similar templates' names]] ==

There doesn't appear to be any legislation in [[Antigua and Barbuda]] establishing an '''official''' national anthem, wether it be [[Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee]] or [[God Save The King]]. There are no proclamations or laws even mentioning these songs (https://laws.gov.ag/), neither are there any references to the anthem in the Constitution. In case the government laws website was missing information, I also decided to check an official law book which did not appear to have any information on the subject. While the government website does have lyrics to Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee (https://ab.gov.ag/detail_page.php?page=26) there are no references to the song God Save the King anywhere on the website. '''As there appears to be no standing for God Save The King as having any sort of status in the country, should it be removed from the note on the article? Also, should it be noted that Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee has no legal status as the official anthem and is simply the ''[[de facto]]'' national anthem similarly to how God Save The King is listed on the anthem note in the [[United Kingdom]] article?''' It should also be noted that the Governor-General is greeted by the tune Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee and '''not''' God Save The King at official occasions (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjLqI8MzJw4 '''1:36'''; this being a video of the Throne Speech). This is also a video of Prince Harry being greeted in Antigua by Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee while the Royal Standard was flying (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIG-T9efXsA '''1:30'''; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfOaIDK4dIQ). '''[[:User:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: red; text-decoration: inherit;">CROIX</span>]]'''^{[[:User talk:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: green; text-decoration: inherit;">talk</span>]]} 05:38, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Currently this discussion pertaining to the kinds of templates found at the foot of articles on countries only has three voices &ndash; please add some more so any semblance of a consensus might emerge. Thanks, [[User:David Kernow|David Kernow]] <span style="font-size:90%;">([[User talk:David Kernow|talk]])</span> 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:There is often an overconflation of "not mentioned in the constitution/laws" and "not being official", things can become official through their use by officials or by other methods. If God Save the King is unsourced it should be removed, but if a government has a webpage saying "this is our official anthem" we shouldn't second-guess them because it doesn't meet some specific meanings of "official". [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 09:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. [[Fair Antigua, We Salute Thee]] is definitely the official anthem by custom, but I do feel that there should at least be a minor note stating that the song has not been adopted by law as the national anthem, as is custom on other country articles with a similar situation. God Save the King being put as the royal anthem on the article appears to have been a mistake though. '''[[:User:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: red; text-decoration: inherit;">CROIX</span>]]'''^{[[:User talk:CROIX|<span class="tmpl-colored-link " style="color: green; text-decoration: inherit;">talk</span>]]} 17:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

:::I would put such a note only if I found it in a high-quality source. Royal anthems in general are I suspect falling out of fashion, and in Commonwealth countries even literal country names (Dominion of Canada, Federation of Malaysia) can simply disappear without an 'official' end point. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 02:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

== ProjectOdd directorymerger requests ==

See [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#Culture sidebars part 3]] <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 17:04, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. The [[WP:COUNCIL|WikiProject Council]] has recently updated the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory]]. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at [[User:B2T2/Portal]], listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding [[:Category:WikiProject assessments|assessment]], [[:Category:WikiProject peer reviews|peer review]], and [[:Category:Wikipedia collaborations|collaboration]] are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. [[User:Badbilltucker2|B2T2]] 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

:This is going to be a cluster f*#k in the long run. Wondering if we should metion this in our guide - basicly going to have to deal with merged templates by thoses noit fammilar with our goals as a project. <span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 12:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

== Greetings ==

::Will have to be careful no navboxes end up in the sidebar position. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

:::My main concern is we're headed down a path of merging all the sidebar templates into the country topics by those not familiar with what we do for country articles..... that is linking main parent articles and not all sub articles in a template to make them accessible. I'm assuming next we'll have the history then foreign affairs then economy etc all merged into one template making it useless.{{category tree all|Canada sidebar templates|depth=0}}. It's too bad the opinions of those that actually create the content isn't more valid than random flyby recommendations. I would assume those at the deletion discussion are unaware that we do mobile versions and desktop versions of pages...<nowiki> {{If mobile|[[File:Maple leaf - panoramio - Mario Hains.jpg|thumb|upright=1.3|Perhaps the most prominent symbol of Canada, the [[maple leaf]] has been a de facto symbol since the 1700s.]] | {{Culture of Canada sidebar}}}}</nowiki><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:-15deg;color:darkblue">'''[[User:Moxy|Moxy]]'''</span><span style="display:inline-flex;rotate:15deg;color:darkblue">[[User talk:Moxy|🍁]]</span> 19:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

== Discussion on the state and quality of the article [[List of wars involving Pakistan]] ==

== [[User:Wesborland|Wesborland]] here ==

There is an ongoing discussion on the state and quality of the article [[List of wars involving Pakistan]]. To editors, please join the discussion at [[Talk:List of wars involving Pakistan#Why I removed content]]. [[User:KashanAbbas|KashanAbbas]] ([[User talk:KashanAbbas|talk]]) 09:37, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I joined this project because I'm interested in improving all [[Image:Flag of Uruguay.png|25px]] [[Uruguay]]-related articles.[[User:Wesborland|Wesborland]] 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)