Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe/Archive 1

For smaller windows/screens

I like the idea of this list, but reckon its formatting currently seems orientated toward larger windows or screens. Suggest the flag sizes are halved, font-size:95% for the list's text and "zoomed-in" locator maps for the smaller states. Anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
PS Not sure if "Czechia" has generally been adopted as a short form of "Czech Republic"...?

I'm inclined to agree with reducing font to 95%.

If flag sizes are halved, details may not be clearly seen... also half may be too drastic. Is there a way to scale them based on viewers capabilities? I found using percentages to define image widths worked well in another project. If not, perhaps 3/4 size would be better than half.

The purpose for including the locator maps within the context of the rest of geographical Europe was to illustrate their location relative to other European countries. This may not be of consequence to a European, since nearly every European knows the difference between the location of Switzerland and that of Latvia. Having said that, the same is not true for many Americans, who will benefit the most from having the countries highlighted relative to one another as they are. Upwards of 80% of Americans can not point to France on a map of Europe. This is not because they are ignorant Americans, but because geography is taught at a fairly young age, and over time, naturally this information is not easily retained. What is the reason for your suggestion to alter the appearence of the maps?

Nationals of the Czech Republic refer to their country as 'Czechia'. It is referred as such in news broadcasts, newspapers and newer official documents. SEE Czechia :: Name. This is the english equivalent with the Czech equivalent being Česko. As stated in the article cited, the name didn't catch on, but will be at the forefront once they adopt the euro, as the name on the coin designs will be both Česko and Czechia. A new strategy to reform popular use of the english transliteration of Czechia is underway. Among the strategies to accomplish this goal is the creation of this article. --Theeuro 05:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I tried two thirds on the first seven maps. Think it looks much better. The bigger ones about knocked me off my chair. Suggest most of the locator maps be selected to show more traditional N-S viewpoints. I understand the idea to fit as much in the rectangle was behind this view, but it's really only needed and appropriate for some of the larger entities. Given a little coastline, or a major geographical slice with some contour like a Black sea-Caspian sea section, people can figure out where they are without seeing Spain and Britain. The other possibility is to do some of the two stage thumbnail maps. The thumb itself has an inset showing the continential locus in outline overlying the country map. Or maybe it's the other way. Some countries over in the Yellow Sea region have those, and in effect, you get an extra zoom state. // FrankB 08:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you weren't injured when you hit the floor!! I fixed the rest of the flags. They do look nice like that. But now there is no 'knock you off your chair' factor to the article!! Oh well, maybe I can get the maps to be 500px? JK!!
• The idea of using thumbnails over the map is a good compromise. I'm very hesitant to use traditional N-S viewpoints. I could use the non-traditional map view as the thumbnail and then apply the N-S orientation on the actual detailed map. --Theeuro 21:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Not to worry, after a long winter I've gained enough rotundity that I just bounce! You have an interesting bias against N-S orientation, to say the least! Being a map-ophile of sorts, I can deal with the polar projections fine, but wonder why you appear to be willing to sacrifice detail (and quality) to clarity. Zooming closer in a traditionally recognizable view for the smaller entities would, I think, make for a clearer presentation. (In researching this next point, I added sections and some color to the page as occurred to me might be good last evening. The color's negotiable, but think the sections are a good change)
• Consider virtually all the A territories and states... they are all essentially tiny. Those pretty much need a zoomed in map IMHO. Ditto similar entities which do not show up readily in the thumbnails. In short, if someone needs to peer closely, or enlarge the map with a click to find the topic territory, I'd plan on a better suited map.
• I left a link in an embedded comment to a color table of non-dithering browser colors should you dislike my choice, but buy into colors in principle. The non-dithering colors (here too!) reproduce the same on all software systems, color cards and monitor combinations. Contrast that with my talk page, for example, which looks very different on my laptop and as displayed by my CRT on this computer... the dithering makes a difference. Cheers! // FrankB 06:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• The reason for the bias is because I wanted to include the transcaucasian region and Greenland on the same map without turning it into an enormous rectangle as you would get with a N-S orientation. Piri Reis I am not. In fact, I am all for using thumbnails depicting europe and then larger more detailed (and yes, N-S orientation) maps of the countries. I could begin that as soon as this weekend. Please give me a color to use for shading. I'm terrible at picking them. And also, it was suggested either by you or another editor that I upload future maps to the commons. I am unfamiliar with how this process works (both how to upload and then using those images in the article). Can you give me a link to something that may be of help in this area? You can post directly to my talk page to save this area for relevant discussion.
• Thank you for helping to make this article great!! --Theeuro 15:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon edit

I agree with the removal of "Holland", as that is simply a wholly incorrect way to refer to the Netherlands, but have undone the absolutely unnecessary note about England. —Nightstallion (?) 18:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that Holland is incorrect on so many levels. I'll just leave a note. Some people don't realize that Holland and The Netherlands are the same place, but rather two different countries. --Theeuro 20:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm also going to have to leave a note about the regions of the UK. --Theeuro 20:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I must protest the removal of the article 'The' from Netherlands. By all accounts, 'The Netherlands' is the 'short form' name for the country. Beatrix is 'Queen of all the Netherlands'. This title refers to The Netherlands. Having simply 'Netherlands' historically has included both Belgium and Luxembourg, as they are also netherlands. The name comes from a term given by Romans to the 'low countries'. Removing 'The' is similar to rmoving 'The' from 'The Hague'. In Dutch, the city is called 'Den Haag'; the country is called 'Der Nederlanden'. While Den Haag is the abbreviated version of 's-Gravenhage, Der Nederlanden is the abbreviated version of Der Nederlanden. So when we translate both terms into english, we get 'The Hague' and 'The Netherlands'. One might also apply the argument that the article is in place to distinguish 'The Seventeen Netherlands', 'The Southern Netherlands', 'The Spanish Netherlands', 'The Netherlands Antillies' and so forth as being the home country of all of the Netherlands. Therefore I'm putting it back in. --Theeuro 03:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahem, Holland is not an entirely different country from The Netherlands, but the central region of two provinces within the whole European part of the realm. Rather similar to saying Wales is part of the island of Britain [1] [2], which many of us ignorant Americans would call England, meaning 'Britain', which apparently really means Great Britain, which until a moment ago, I had thought meant the government of England+Scottland+Wales (informally as it were), and is apparently actually the Island itself, to my chagrin and surprise. Sigh.

Which poses the important question: Where is the isle of Lesser Britain, Small Britain, or Inconsequential Britain in contrast? <BSEG>

In all seriousness, perhaps a similar tableized page should be put together for regions like England+Scottland+Wales and such inobvious references like Lincoln (?Lincolnshire?), Essex, Wessex, Midlands, etc., not to forget flanders, Holland, Jutland, etc. and God knows what else. If it were indexed by country, linking to a section would be a snap, and it would be useful as an searchable reference by territorial name... for those occasions when we across the pond have to figure out what the heck some Brit written history is talking about... and the like!

Alternatively, might be a good idea to add such terratorial names in the table, using a bulleted list format, and a colspan="5" prefix, etc. so the list wraps within a one row element under the country columns (not under the flags, let that be blank, hence NOT colspan="6". // FrankB 07:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the exact reason I thought it necessary to leave the references to the other regions of the UK intact!! Incidently, you forgot to ask the location of Britain Brac!

That's cause I'd never heard of it! <g> Britain Brac -- have now, but Wikipedia hasn't yet! <g> Perhaps a redirect or stub is in order? // FrankB

I know all about the Holland/ The Netherlands controversy. I live in Rotterdam which is in South Holland province. The first place I lived is Zaltbommel in Gelderland province. These are next to each other and the two cities are not more than 45 min apart by train- however ask anyone in Rotterdam the name of their country and they will say Holland; those in Zaltbommel will say The Netherlands. It is a source of internal strife which may erupt any day into a full blown conflict. This brings to mind a recent match between the football teams playing for the apostrophetically challenged city of s'Hertogenbosch and Rotterdam. The fans actually began a chanting contest, each side alternatly yelling 'Holland' and 'Nederland'. It could very well have undone the fabric of Dutch society had it not been for the fact that Willem and Maxima were in their boxes shouting 'Koningen'. And since we all have an affinity for the Queen the yelling stopped.

I like the idea of creating a seperate article listing the geographical regions in Europe. This could contain everything from Transnistria to Basque. That would be better than adding it to this page in the form you suggest- that might go beyond the purvue of the article. You know, I think it would be a helpful article. Perhaps I'll start building this castle in my sandbox. I'm kind of new at this wikipedia editing, so help with categorizing the page and the like would be needed- unless you would like to start the thing in your sandbox? Let me know we could collaborate on it! How exciting!!

The sections and non-dithering background looks very, very nice.

In the history of the page, you mentioned something about adding notes to Norway and the Vatican, but I don't see anything. What did you want to put there?

Don't worry about being across the pond. I myself am a pond jumper (lived in Pittsburgh and had to shave the playoff beard this morning. Sigh.).

Your input has been very much appreciated... now stop!!! (just kidding)  ;) !! --Theeuro 14:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• I just realized what the Norway and Vatican reference was in the history. Please disregard my question about this from above. I'm still learning this whole editing process!! --Theeuro 16:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace of Westphalia, sans sufficient local definition relative to the territories of the Germanies.

Proto-proposal

OK, let's call it a tentative deal...

pending the below factors, natch. No reason to reinvent the wheel if something is already under weigh!

Sorry RL and other wiki-distractions lead me to neglect seeing your answer here until this morning. I be a busy boy. I'd just like to sum up by stating the idea of an alphabetical list of territories and regions (BTW- needs to be 'Time dependent'--things did shift around a bit (all too frequently!) as princelings traded territories, Salic Law messed with other inheritances, and siblings split up or combined/re-combined estate holdings--and the same name was applied to all, or shifted to another. That suggests some format based on arbitrary time spans... perhaps every 25 years? [plus major treaty outcomes, s.a. Treaty of Westphalia?]) with good quality maps is an excellent project idea, albeit necessarily a long term project, and should in fact, be made international, so as to rope in as much researcher talent as possible.

I know a few guys on the commons that are likely to be interested,as would many editors of articles here or on other language wiki's. (For example consider: Elector of Hanover and Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, and King of Hanover, which all are related, are important historically, and yet all separate (albeit overlapping or inclusionary) place names. Ditto Old Saxony, and the many other Saxony's that have existed as the place name shifted it's territory!)

So such a 'place encyclopedia' would be a wonderful reference if we can systematically pull that together over a few years.

I'd guess we'd be able to gather other manpower from wikiprojects on each country and Wikiproject History, Wikiproject geography, etc. In short, it would pretty much have to be a Meta-project, possibly directly under the M:Communications committee, but the long term use as a reference would be quite useful whether organized as a list or an comprehensive historical Atas or both (Wikipedia listed by names format and atlas format by greater regions perhaps? Or create our wp lists by greater, stable, and well known regional names? [nah-- that would be circular, we'd want a reference someone can find those kinds of names meant!]).

Such a list here would probably in practice have to be kept in similar form to this article. Note that there is already a Commons Wikiproject (Wikiproject Atlas) which should probably be the flagship (point) parent project and one big step would be in trying to locate omnibudsmen within most other wikipedia's—which it is likely either Wikiproject History or Geography already have in place to some extent at least.

I'll make some inquiries there on the commons later and see if perhaps anything is up in that respect already.

The likely most troublesome part of that will be obtaining good territory maps of uniform acceptable quality. Extant maps older than 70 years can be scanned in of course, but the production maps should make some attempt at scaling to some TBDL consistent steps in an overall range of stock sizes. I know there is some effort to generate a core reference collection of locator maps on the commons already, and that should also have other international participation now as well. TTFN // FrankB 16:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Netherlands

Doesn't "Kingdom..." include Aruba, Antilles, Sint Maarten, etc.? Shouldn't it just be Netherlands? —MC 00:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of the Netherlands is the 'long form' name of the country, just like The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the 'long form' name of the UK. The 'short form' name is The Netherlands. --Theeuro 03:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that. The European part is also called Kingdom of the Netherlands? I thought it referred to all parts only. So then these articles need editing → Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands ? —MC 15:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

None of those articles need editing. The 'domestic long form' name of the country is 'Koninkrijk der Nederlanden'. This is translated into english as 'Kingdom of the Netherlands' and refers to 'all of the Netherlands'- colonial expansion aside- this can refer to all of the low countries as well, historically speaking. It is a matter of convention and names of countries, not socio-economic-historic ties with names of countries. Only their names. By this time next year, though, if you take a plane from Amsterdam, The Netherlands to Oranjestad, Aruba you will have landed in the same country as you departed from. There is going to be a change in status for some of the Netherlands Antillies. Out of curiosity, what is the nature of your interest in this? --Theeuro 15:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just curiosity. ;-) —MC 01:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No: unlike in the British Crown (where there are separate kingdoms for the British dependancies, plus a unified kingdom that became a state with 3 nations plus Northern Ireland), there's only one kingdom of the Netherlands, but several "countries". But anyway the Dutch kingdom as a whole is recognized internationaly as a single country

(the question is disputed for the United Kingdom, because its dependantt territories are not part of the civil state of the United Kingdom, but they are still recognized internationally as part of it, or not considered independant like the British Crown "possessions": Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Mann that are just in free association with UK under agreement by the English sovereign). Note that the British Kingdom does not include Northern Ireland, but includes all of Britain, and it does not include the other kingdoms that are part of the Commonwealth of countries where the British sovereign is the head of state, without relation to the internationally recognized countries considered independant. See then the British Crown as an international organization (not an independant state): the soverign is just cumulating over his head several distinct statuses of head of state).

Verdy p (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing country!

Umm... where's Lithuania?

Ummm... I forgot it!! Thank you so much. Just as soon as my face stops glowing red, I will put it in!! Yikes!! Good catch!! --Theeuro 15:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposition to settle name of Netherlands for good

I don't want to get into an editing war over something that I know is correct. Therefore, I have initiated a request for information from the Dutch government regarding this matter. The proposition is simply this: When the response comes, I will forward the information to User: Nightstallion and will post it here as well. The results of the enquiry will settle the matter once and for all. We must all agree to follow the response where ever it leads us- even if the current state of the information on wikipedia is incorrect. That information must then be changed within those articles.

Until the reponse comes, however, I am going to reinstitute the information and cite the United States CIA World Factbook -- Netherlands, which corroborates the original information (Without the article 'The' preceding Netherlands), as the source for the information. Once the response is received from the Dutch governmnet, that information will then be used as the primary source of information for this issue even if it conflicts with that of the US CIA information. --Theeuro 20:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. Sounds like a good solution to me. —Nightstallion (?) 22:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Any progress on this? –MC (talk) 01:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

List of countries

Indeed, this is a list of countries. Therefore, why areas like Åland, Gibraltar and Jersey are mentioned? --213.186.247.54 11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

If those areas must be mentioned, you have to make clear that those areas are not independent. Otherwise the list is just messy and misleading. --213.186.247.54 11:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This issue is addressed in the notes. Theeuro 11:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Great Britain

The "United Kingdom" is not the same as "Britain" or "Great Britain". There is not reason why the latter two should be included in the "English Short Name" section. I will remove unless someone can give me a good reason not to. Codu ^(t)⁄_(c) •  18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not the same; it is sometimes referred to as such in context of being the 'Short Name' of the country.

Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 20:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unrecognized Countries

Why should unrecognized countries be listed in a separate article, when non-independent entities like the Faroe Islands ARE listed here instead of in a separate article? Inkan1969 (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-independent entities like the Faroe Islands and such are recognized as self-governing or non-independent. Unrecognized countries tend to be less permanent in both status and existence. But for the Greek Cypriots, Northern Cyprus would not exist today (SEE: Cyprus: Modern Era (1975-present)). Fell free to use this article as a template for creating an article listing unrecognized countries. If you go ahead with the article, please include whatever city is considered to be the capital, as this list will soon contain capital cities as well.
Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 20:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that you still have not given a good reason not to list the unrecognized countries. If they cease to exist, then we simply delete them from the article when it happens. At the very least would you consider listing the unrecognized countries in a separate section at the bottom of the article? I don't think they merit their own separate article. You also might want to consider putting the non-sovereign entities in their own section as well.Inkan1969 (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after I finished deleting them, I realized that it would be prudent to include them, just exactly as you suggest, as a section. Also, you bring up the good point that the non-sovereign countries could also stand to be filtered out into a separate section. So the second section will be for non-sovereign, the third will be unrecognized. Thanks for your patience during the time it took for me to come around to your point of view... ;)

Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I thought I should get your OK before I do anything myself. I just set up the unrecognized section. It needs maps. Inkan1969 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger

The first section is completed. Thoughts?
Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 21:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE

The merger is almost complete. The article, List of European countries and their capitals should remain until the second and third sections are finished, which will incorporate non-sovereign and unrecognized countries into the list as well.
The merger is now complete.
Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

{{mergefrom}}

Article merged February 2008

sealand??

i dont think it belongs here --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 21:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say that? It fits the Declarative theory of statehood. Otherwise, we could not possibly put in any of the others in this category.
Cheers.The € • ^T/_C 00:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sealand definitely does not belong here, we don't do micronations on "countries" lists. —Nightstallion 19:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If we don't put micronations on "countries" lists, why did you not also remove Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City? The simple fact is that these entities are countries in Europe and belong on this list. Which points of the Declarative theory of statehood prevent Sealand from being listed?
The Badinter Committee has issued opinions regarding this subject. Please see: Allain Pellet (1992). "The Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee: A Second Breath for the Self-Determination of Peoples". European Journal of International Law 3 (1): 178-185. Sealand can not be removed from this list based on its micronation status without removing Monaco, San Marino and Vatican City from the list as well. It also can not be removed based on certain points of the Declarative theory not being met, because the territory of Sealand has been declared independent and in fact, has defacto recognition by Germany.
Cheers.The € • ^T/_C 21:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're very wrong on this; this subject has been discussed countless times (especially on Talk:List of countries, look through the archives there) and the consensus was not to include micronations in "list of countries ..." articles. Micronations are *completely* different from microstates like Monaco, Andorra, the Vatican City (all of those except for the Vatican City have UN membership, and the Vatican City has almost universal diplomatic recognition from nearly the whole world). —Nightstallion 17:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Barring the differences between microstates and micronations for a moment, the entity does fit the declarative theory, just as the others in the category do. What makes this entity different from the others? Is it the size or the circumstances? The only difference between Vatican City and Sealand is the level of diplomatic recognition and size (Sealand is smaller), in terms of statehood. Then again, the only difference between Transnistria and Luxembourg is the level of diplomatic recognition and size (Luxembourg is smaller).
The € • ^T/_C 03:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the concept is entirely different; Sealand is a micronation, while Transnistria is an unrecognised country. —Nightstallion 19:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

My question is this: What makes Sealand a micronation and not an unrecognised country?
The € • ^T/_C 03:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition and international response to assertion of status. —Nightstallion 09:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rome/Paris

There have been many issues regarding how these cities should be listed here. The general idea is to have the long form name of the city listed in the native language in order to follow the existing formatting already present in the article. The full Italian name for the city is: Comune di Roma. Along the same lines, the full French name for the capital of France is: Ville de Paris. References to these names can be found in their corresponding articles: Paris, Rome.
The € • ^T/_C 03:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Following this idea, the capital of Belgium would be, in this list, City of Brussels (Ville de Bruxelles) instead of Brussels. While I'm not against the idea, I would prefer if the common (short) name is mentionned, with a note citing the long name when necessary.

Apart from the infobox, I can't find a reference saying that the name "Ville de Paris", for example, is official; I've requested a citation from a reliable source. Thanks, Korg (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Given that the short name is already mentioned as the link to the corresponding article, having the longer, domestic name present would follow along the conventions of the rest of the article. I would much prefer having the longer domestic names present as well. For Brussels, Ville de Bruxelles can be present as well as the associated Dutch and German equivalence. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

When your reliable source verifies the information, a citation can be placed in the article. Until then, I see no reason for a citation request. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. Korg (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that Rome is the name of the capital. "Comune di Roma" is simply the name of the Rome's basic administrative unit. The city is simple Roma! And, from the Italian consitution: Rome is the capital of the Republic. Its status is regulated by State Law. --cerrigno 08:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. Also, "Ville de Paris" rather refers to the municipality than the city itself. Korg (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

However, if these names can't be verified, they shouldn't be included into the article. Korg (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just to see in the National Constitutions... Other opinions? Otherwise I will procede to change the page. For Rome, but also for Paris. --cerrigno 09:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo

I know at least 5 countries that do not recognize Kosovo outside Serbian territory. is it a recognized state?

For now only the usa and Austria recognized it.

ES Vic (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While your facts are off (more than just two states recognise it), it may fit better in the section with Transnistria and South Ossetia for now. —Nightstallion 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that it should remain in the unrecognised section, but it should defiantly retain the new flag and map. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 21:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, then we agree on that. —Nightstallion 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

USA, France, Germany, Britain, Turkey, Albania, and Afghanistan have recognized Kosovo, more than 100 countries are in the prepartory stages to recogonize including Japan, Canada, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Bulgaria, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. --Finalnight (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

...."more than 100 countries are in the preparatory stages"...which one of you guys have contacts with governments of those 100 countries and know for sure what are their intentions? Human kind is in preparatory stage of building human colonies on Moon and Mars...should we start packing our suitcases now? Let's even say that's true and that it will happen...who decides on how many countries should recognize a territory for it to become independent...shouldn't UN decide on that? ...I don't see Kosovo on UN list of independent countries...so how can it possibly be on list of European sovereign states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.199.84.132 (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously a very delicate issue for a great many people. It would be prudent for everyone if we take some time to remember WP:GF. For the moment, the United Nations list of independent countries seems like a good reference point for determination as to where Kosovo should appear in this article. While there are arguments for both points, for the time being Kosovo will remain in the unrecognised country category. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 08:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone contend that Kosovo has "universal diplomatic recognition", which according to the heading of the "unrecognized" section, seems to be the criterion? There are at least two countries that have declared not to recognize it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.0.5 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question -- it has not got unversial diplomatic recognition, therefore it's in the last section. —Nightstallion 13:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I though we all agreed that UN list of independent countries is good reference point for determining if country should on the list of sovereign European countries.....so who put Kosovo back on the list and why?24.199.84.132 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)G

This criterium is ridiculous - Switzerland only became member of the UN in 2002, and the Vatican City isn't a member of the UN at all! Luis rib (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What criterion do you propose? I would at least like to wait until Kosovo has a delegation to the EU parliament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeuro (talk • contribs) 03:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo is recognised by teh majority of the EU, NATO, UK perm members and should be recorded as a full country.The other countries are not recognised by anyone, except the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognised only by Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2007apm (talk • contribs) 22:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a sensitive issue. While I agree that Kosovo should be a full country and listed as such, there is plenty of time before the eventuality occurs that will allow Kosovo to be listed as a /normal/ country. Patience is appreciated in this matter. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 04:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move. Húsönd 12:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose moving this page to List of European countries, mainly to follow the titles of other similar pages: List of African countries, List of Asian countries, List of North American countries, List of South American countries, and List of Oceanian countries. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support per precedent presented by nom. JPG-GR (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Note that the history of List of European countries should probably be preserved. Korg (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Conditional The history and talk page of this article should be preserved. It is also partially protected due to Kosovo issue, so that should be preserved as well. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 18:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Missing FYROM references

The name of this country is missing it's official and internationally recognized form as told many times by the United Nations. Please correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.219.85.234 (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FYROM is only a provisional designation and not an official and internationally recognized form.Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Kosovo and Serbia

Kosovo and Serbia, this two contrys most be in same list, bothe are disputed. There soverenety of this states in there borders is dispudet from many states [International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence ]. --Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Till thate time Serbia most be removet from this list.--Hipi Zhdripi (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't post here again until you can learn how to spell and speak properly. Also, your argument has more holes than Swiss Cheese. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 04:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Armenia

If transcontinental countries such as Kazakhstan and Russia have their Asian parts in light blue, how come Armenia is entirely in dark blue? Geographically, Armenia is entirely located in Asia. Húsönd 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, geographically, it is in the Lesser Caucasus Mountains, which fall within the southern geologic border of Europe's continental divide: '..the Caucasus Mountains and the Black Sea with its outlets, Bosporus and Dardanelles in the south...'. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 19:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the Upper Caucasus or the Kura River that traditionally make the continental border. Armenia is never to be considered geographically in Europe, not even partially. Húsönd 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To put a more precise point to the geological border of Europe in the Transcaucasian region, the division of the Eurasia super continent lies at the watershed of the Caucasus Mountains. Since the Akhuryan River has its source in the Caucasus and runs through Armenia, then the geologic location of Armenia is at least partially in Europe. Some would consider the river Aras to be the geologic border between Asia and Europe. This is more of a political border frontier than a geologic one; though technically, since the point at which the river Aras meets Akhuryan, Aras then becomes partially sourced from the Caucasus mountains, this may be correct. I'm surprised that you should say 'Armenia is never to be considered geographically in Europe, not even partially', given the country's extensive sociopolitical and cultural connections with Europe. Cyprus, for example is geographically and geologically entirely within Asia, but is considered a part of Europe because of similar ties. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 09:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)