Talk:List of land borders with dates of establishment

Title

Is this list inended to be by date of establishment, or simply with? Right now it is in roughly alphabetical order of countries, but not at all in date order.LeadSongDog come howl 16:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker of english, so i guess you are right.Daanschr (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would have gone in a table form myself, but I cannot do this. Then the reader could arrange it by date or alphabetical order as they wished, though date would be more useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That could be done. Though, many dates are uncertain. But, it would give an indication.Daanschr (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong

The list is quite long if only present countries are used, acknowleged by the UN. If also former borders are included, than the list will be so incredibly long, that it is impossible to put it on one page. Would you agree to put historical data, or other than at present UN acknowledged countries and borders, to put on a different page?Daanschr (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of historical borders, or this list could be infinite. And the article should deal only with existing borders. Another section could be used for "Special Regions" such as Hong Kong, though I doubt putting it on another page would achieve much. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I got the info off, but it was re-added and afterwards also the German-Lithuanian borders of before 1940 were added. So, i made a special section out of it. I agree that it is better to discard it, but here on Wikipedia there can be huge trench wars on such issues. The last header on historical borders could be moved to a new article indeed.Daanschr (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Errors

Lithuania-Poland needs editing, it only included WWI, the borders were different upon Lithuanian independence in 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chipmunkdavis (talk • contribs) 19:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Do you know the specifics?Daanschr (talk) 05:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I could change it, but using information from other pages in wikipedia, not an outside source. There are other errors and inconsistencies in this article, I think it needs to be redone somehow. Perhaps under each border have the original establishment as the first bullet point followed by other bullet points which explain changes in sovereignty on each side of the border? That seems to be used a little at least in the creation of this article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I used three occasions, namely the instance one of the two countries first had the border there for the first time, the second occasion is when the other has its border there for the first time, and the third occasion when both countries have the border in a certain place. This can be all the same date, or it can be three different dates. Most borders have been quickly implemented by me, just to ensure the article would have all borders, so a lot of the info can be changed or discussed. Some borders aren't established at the moment, for instance in the Arabian desert. The info can be outdated in that area.Daanschr (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand where you came from, and I think I understand what you are saying, although its not perfectly clear. (This is no offense to you, as you said, English is not your fist language)

I take it you mean that the first date is when the border first appeared, and the second and third as the countries on either side appeared in their modern form? That is an excellent start, but I reckon it could do with some more information, for example, when countries on either side were colonized or decolonized. As it is some parts seem inconsistent to me. I think later I'll go into it and add information and edit a bit, mostly minor. More importantly, I think that the Palestinian Territories and the Western Sahara should be moved to the Hong Kong section. Thoughts? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Often borders appear before it becomes the border of one of the two countries. If colonization and decolonization is included, than the amount of data will be enormously enlarged, though it would be valid for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Though there is a tendency in Wikipedia to exclude information which is too obscure, something which i don't agree with.

To give you an example of how much trouble it will become if first appearance and colonization/decoloniaztion is included among the criteria: take a look at the Bulgarian-Romanian border. A guy came along who didn't agree that 1185 was the date that this border was established for the first time, being the border between Bulgaria and the Cumans. He said that the Cumans were part of Bulgaria. I found out that there is something to say for this, because at first Bulgaria and the Cumans were allies, but because the Cumans were pretty weak, they became practically subdued as a puppet, though authority was weak. Than in 1241, the Mongolians destroyed most of Bulgaria and exterminated the Cumans, annexing Cuman territory. And now Bulgaria became technically independent but somehow a puppet for the Mongolians. For some reason the guy, whom i mentioned, didn't respond to this information ;-). There are a lot of borders where a country was often colonized, or changes in allegiances appears. That makes it hard. The Bulgarian-Romanian border is the Danube river, this has been the border of the Roman Empire, and before that of the Persian Empire and of several tribes in the area. So, if i mention 1241, than it is the first time it is the border of Bulgaria, but not the first time the river Danube was a border. In 1861, it was the first time it was the border of Romania, but Bulgaria was a Turkish province at the time. It was only in 1878 during the Bulgarian independence that the Danube became the border between Bulgaria and Romania. Hope this makes it more clear, how this article works.Daanschr (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely food for thought. I would've thought that this article would be more focused on when the actual border appeared, regardless of who was on either side. Probably as it is about modern borders it should start at the last time the borders changed. In your above example I think it would be right to start it when bulgaria became free of mongol rule/part of the ottoman empire. After that the border stays unchanged does it not? I don't think the data will be massively enlarged if the principle of going only from when the border was last changed is kept to when adding changes of sovereignty on either side. Mostly it would be places becoming independent, especially in Africa where the Colonialists set the borders. For some entries like the Andorra ones there already seems to be some information about changes, to do with Foix, and Aragon and Castille uniting. I think that the information should be included wherever it is relevant and can be added without argument over the facts (so most african countries) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Established the Oceania border as the test case Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree to first change the whole format on every occasion and than put it in the article, because now the borders in Oceania are in a different format, than the borders of all other countries? The first appearance of a border regardless of neighbouring countries is a good category, but i see another problem coming, the definition of independence. Switzerland for instance has a long story of border creation in this article, most of it in the period it was part of Germany. That is why the Swiss-German border info is pretty small compared to other info, because when Switzerland is part of Germany, it can't have a border with Germany, despite it existance. The Swiss-French, Swiss-Austrian and Swiss-Liechtenstein border gives a whole lot of information about the German period of Switzerland. Historians tend to see Germany from 1250 to 1871, as a region with several independent countries, like Switzerland, but there was definitely some kind of statehood. The difficulty with determining borders in this case is, whether provincial borders should be added within a country, or we should only focus on international border between countries. There are a whole other bunch of issues.

We could start a puppet article, with changes in it and implement them on this article, when the whole format is changed.Daanschr (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I used Oceania because there was only one border there, and it is easy enough to change back if need be. I think that independence is easy enough to define, Switzerland split off from the Holy Roman Empire about the same time as the Netherlands, so then it was de jure as well as de facto independent, so I think that date is usually used as the date of the independence. I agree that only international borders should be counted, not internal borders, as this seems to be the focus of this article, and adding internal borders would make it completely unmanageable. In addition, I think that two colonies of the same country that border eg. Zambia/Zimbabwe should not be included in the list of borders, just for simplicity without losing much detail. I don't think a puppet article would be right, however, we can test new formats on this talk page in a new section, in which we should use only a few examples, to keep in short and manageable, and develop a format. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It would work. It is better for the article to include data from the age of colonization as you suggested. Problem only is, that i am not having the stomach at the moment to put much effort in changing the article, so i leave it up to you! Though, you could always discuss issues here and i will respond. First this article was something of interest to me and i didn't finish it off. But, during unemployment last year i was so incredibly bored, that i finished the whole damn thing. It is not my favourite way of spending my time however. Sorry to say that. You are welcome to edit, at least.Daanschr (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I will edit it as best as I can, but unfortunately I am not so experienced at high-class wikipedia editing. I will probably edit it in fits and bursts as I notice problems. I'll try to bring any big changes to this talk page, but welcome yours, and anyones input, as well as help from others more experienced and with more wikipedia expertise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

My experience with Wikipedia is that it is a bit anarchistic. Though the last few years there is some change for the better. It is becoming more intellectual. Though many parts of wikipedia are still a giant mess. For instance i was once editing on the article about the Gauls. And one 18 year old guy didn't want me to add that the Gauls are the same as the Celts. He simply refused to add the information and i didn't want to pick a fight, so the article remained as he pleased. Many experts, scientists from universities, have left Wikipedia for the reason that complete nobodies refused to accept their knowledge. A concern is that Wikipedia is turning more bureaucratic. I was amazed that it had implemented a (communist) 5 year plan-system. And the main concern is to keep the organization running, and not to make it as perfect as possible, what would be my preferred more romantic ideal. But, at least in this article, you got some freedom (granted by me) to edit. Though, in Wikipedia terms we are both equal and have to cooperate to edit this article. It doesn't matter whether you are new. Everybody is equal here!Daanschr (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

There sure were some mistakes in the article, with alphabet and such. All edits seem reasonable.Daanschr (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Table

If anyone can create a table similar to this one it would be most welcome. Titles something like 1. Bordering Countries. 2. Date border first established. 3. Original bordering states and changes since then 3 could be a list of the different sets of countries on the border, so for example for Tanzania/Mozambique, the third column would list German East Africa/Portuguese East Africa, Tanganyika (UK)/Portuguese East Africa, Tanganyika/Portuguese East Africa, Tanzania/Portuguese East Africa, Tanzania/Mozambique. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice link you got there. Are you enjoying yourself?Daanschr (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm not as sleek as I would like to be. Link fixed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It got me puzzled and i used to maintain order at a school of 16 to 20 year olds. I got to habbit to react fast. But, if you act courteous than i will as well. (I removed my worst language, which is unapropriate for this talk page).Daanschr (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I fully intend to remain courteous. Let's try to stay on topic! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea

I want to reverse the edit, because it doesn't abide to the present format of the article. I don't disagree with the edit, but it is now a strange element in the present state of the article. If Chipmunkdavis, or someone else wants to spend a lot of work to fix this article, than i agree with keeping this edit, otherwise i will reverse it.Daanschr (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the consistency point. If you could copy it over here when you revert it, then it would be a good template for someone else to work off if they have time (which I don't, unfortunately) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link.Daanschr (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Individual page links

If someone has a lot of spare time on their hands, the links on here could be linked to the individual border pages: Category:International borders.WisDom-UK (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)