Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Leaflet For Wikiproject Countries At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

EU in lists?

• See the discussion at Talk:List of countries by GDP (PPP)#EU. --John (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Government parameter in Template:Infobox country and Template:Infobox former country

Further information: Template talk:Infobox country § Edit request 27 August 2014

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trust Is All You Need (talk • contribs) 20:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is RoC different to Kosovo?

I've opened a discussion at Talk: Taiwan about how to describe the Republic of China consistent with how Wikipedia describes other partially recognised states like Kosovo. Participation welcomed. Frenchmalawi (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

U.S. square area

There has been a discussion at Talk:United States#Area in square miles —sorry, in a wall of three sections — whether to use the U.S. Census Bureau “State and other areas” which uses the MAF/TIGER database, shared by the USGS and Homeland Security. The first box on the first line reports 3,805,927 sq.mi. for the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas”. Some editors would like to see the figure of “50 states and DC” alone, which is available in a sub-chart.

In trying to find a resolution, I proposed a “Poll for two alternatives”, for reporting the total U.S. area in the info box.

• A. Report area including territories, footnote 50 states and DC area.

• B. Report 50 states and DC area, footnote area including territories.

The results are two A., three B, although one of the Bs says either way, and one of the Bs may be saying no footnote. Any comments are welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

An RFC is now in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Greece

There is an ongoing discusion on whether citizenship data of the last census should be included in the article's infobox. It would be great to see as many participants in the discussion as possible.Hansi667 (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Font size for footnotes in Infobox country

A request to change the font size for footnotes in this template has been made in Template_talk:Infobox_country#Footnote_text_is_tiny, if any interested editor wants to comment. GermanJoe (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Table of Nations"

The usage of the pagename Table of Nations is up for discussion, see talk:Sons of Noah -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Natural history of the Caribbean by islands

Category:Natural history of the Caribbean by islands has been listed for Categories for Discussion -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Flag of Ryukyu

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#RfC: Flag of Ryukyu concerning the Ryukyuan national flag. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see Talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride!

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

• What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
• When? June 2015
• How can you help?

  1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here

  2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)

  3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 03:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Skovaji, needs assesing

The new article Skovaji needs to be assesed and assigned a rating, as well as put on to your map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistoop (talk • contribs) 07:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"No man's land"

The usage and primary topic of "No man's land"/"No Man's Land" is under discussion, see talk:No man's land -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"(state)"

Does the disambiguator "(state)" have a special meaning to not mean "state" in general, if used in Chinese history articles? See Talk:Song (state) where we are discussing whether "state" does not mean any state, but only means non-Imperial states -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

See also Talk:Liao (state) where we are discussing if "(state)" only applies to some states and not other states named "Liao" -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Error in sums of areas

I want to signal a problem in the sum of somes areas. For North America (CAN +US), you mention an area of 3,68 millions square km, but later for Canada 3,1 millions km² and for US 3,03 millions or a sum of 6,13 millions km². That don't work. I do not verified others sums but that may be of interest for an encyclopedia to be as precise as possible. (French version have the same problem.) Thank you for your attention. 96.21.110.93 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)CSH Canada

Talk:Burma

Please see comment regarding Menorca and old name "Minorca" In ictu oculi (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Rwanda FAR nomination

I have nominated Rwanda for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I have proposed the merger of the articles List of military occupations with List of territorial disputes. You can join the discussion here.

Thanks for your participation. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Iran

Can we get a few more eyes on the edits at Iran...we have a new editor removing dead links without replacing them or trying to find archive versions. I have mentioned the problems on the talk page but no longer have time to go into more details. -- Moxy (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) mergers

I posted a merge request at Talk:List of countries by student performance#Proposed merge a few weeks ago and haven't received any responses. Wondering if anyone here has any thoughts? Regards, Jolly Ω Janner 09:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Deleting galleries of personalities from ethnic group articles

There is an ongoing Request for Comments that may be of interest to members of this project. You are welcome to express your opinion about the matter. LjL (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 18:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Can We Include a Media Section as a Standard Part of the Format for the Project to Develop Countries

All articles within Wikipedia ought to have, as part of its standard repertoire, a Media Section to accompany its other components. Every nation in its original article that provides an overview of that political unit that we commonly refer to as a country, should also give a brief overview of how broadcast communications are provided in that nation. Only the United Kingdom article, the United States article and the Mexico article possess that section of what I have so far reviewed. Spain and France in Europe, for example, do not possess that information or even have it included as other parts of the main article. Even something about the various national libraries and national museums that many, many nations have ought to be included in the overall national summary article. At this point it is not a part of the Standard Format - which there ought to be - to maintain the consistency required of a legitimate encyclopaedia. I add this here with this project, because I believe that this is where the organization for those endeavors begins. And even the inclusion of certain items ought to standardized so each of the editors that do contribute don't have to continually reinvent the wheel everytime they try to drive their mental vehicle forward. Every media section should include public broadcast information such as television and radio, along with private broadcast mechanisms of significance, the major newspapers that distribute information to the populaces of those nations, possibly major telephone systems or vendors, the major satellite systems the country may control or receives dedicated information from, (in the case of France for example, I believe they used to have their own internet until the U.S. built a competing system that has now become a singular global commercial system - unless they just kept it as a military system), but their national libraries and museums should also merit inclusion somewhere within this scheme. Hopefully, someone or a number of people will agree that this suggestion merits importance in providing a balanced overview of the presentation of nations and ought to be integrated into the skeleton of the outlines that are used as a foundation to build those articles... Thanks and regards... Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The outline presented on this project covers only the broad sections rather than the specific content. Media is indeed important, but I am unsure whether it should be given a dedicated header within every country article, as the WP:MOS recommends both soft caps on article sizes and also that header sections should not be too short. Some featured country articles have had no level 3 headers at all. I've seen media included within culture sections, and feel that it definitely has a place there, even if it is not due its own header. Other issues you mention would also fall under culture. CMD (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Many articles do talk about media....as has been mention above...normally in the culture sections. We could add mention of it to that section here. -- Moxy (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, the current summary of art and artists is neither a very comprehensive set of pointers nor a reflection of what FA articles have. CMD (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of Country/Geopolitical Faction Infobox on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic pages

An edit war over which infobox to use on the DPR and LPR pages has been ongoing for several months now. In an attempt to remedy the situation i have opened up a discussion and request for comment here Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic#Infobox, your opinions and comments on the issue would be much appreciated.XavierGreen (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Percent Water

In the infoboxes, is the percent water for internal water, or does it include territorial seas? Example: Poland has 311888 km^2 of land (including internal waters), 2005 km^2 of internal waters, and 8682 km^2 of territorial seas (p. 25). So which of the following is correct:

• Poland has 2005/311888= 0.643% water
• Poland has (2005+8682)/311888 = 3.42% water

Please ping me in reply. I think this is something that should be specified on the project page and/or the {{Infobox country}} documentation. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir:, the percent water is meant to clarify the total area figure. If the total area includes territorial water, so should the % water figure. That shifts the argument to what should be in the total area, and in that case I would argue against territorial waters being included, as I think that's what would generally be expected. CMD (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: That makes sense to me. So in the case of Poland, the numbers should be update to 0.643%, right? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: In your examples yes, but the current Poland infobox shows 791 water of 312,679 total, which would be 0.253%. CMD (talk) 02:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: No idea where they're getting those numbers. I'll address it on the article talk page. Thank you! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Structure and Guidelines : Facts Table : Land Area : water %

I note that numerous country articles attempt to variously distinguish "water area" or "% water" as a component of country size. Is there an internationally accepted standard and methodology for doing so, and appropriate secondary sources demonstrating their use and findings? Currently, there is considerable inconsistency in the definition and use of this data category, and as a result editors are using inaccurate, partial, and non-comparable data, in country articles, geographic feature comparison lists, and country comparison articles. If there is no internationally accepted standard, methodology or sources, then I suggest removing "% water" from the structure and guidelines for facts tables, and removing the category from country articles and revising the various size comparison lists affected. Robert Brukner (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no universal standard to calculate country size, but we do the best we can. In my view the % water helps clarify the total area given, by showing how much of that area is land. If there is no source that does it for a certain country, it shouldn't be included on that infobox. As for comparison lists, that is more difficult, but it would depend on how those comparison lists are sourced. If the area is taken from sources in a consistent fashion, then it seems sensible to not include % water if no similar source is used for water. If all values are from a variety of sources though, I don't see why % water couldn't be included where possible. CMD (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong - dependency or not in lists of GDP

There is a discussion (link) about how to treat Hong Kong in a list of GDPs. Such lists typically italicize dependencies and non-sovereign entities as well as not count them in the rankings. The question being raise is whether or not Hong Kong should be treated. Anyone know knows details on this issue or knows of past discussions would be very welcome in the discussion. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

national day in Infobox?

Didn't Template:Infobox country used to have a slot for a country's national day or holiday? —Steve Summit (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure, but I wouldn't add it now. Doesn't say much about the country. CMD (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

RM on anti-national sentiment

Hello, if you can please participate in this discussion on country-related articles. Thank you. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Smarter ISO 3166 handling

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please participate in discussion at Template talk:Infobox country#Smarter ISO 3166 handling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  03:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification

I have changed Kenya to B-class status because I feel it has met the referencing criterion. However, I am posting here because I have provided the refs myself. If anyone feels I have made a mistake due to a conflict of interest, please re-assess it and let me know. Thanks, MediaKill13 (talk) 11:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Problematic article

List of countries and dependencies by population is an article that is relevant to this project. After having it drop off my watchlist some time ago I returned on 9 August 2016 to find that the population table is constantly being edited without any indication of sourcing, or edit summaries, usually by IPs or newly registered editors. The complete lack of sourcing for new edits means that the data in this article is dubious at best. One particular problem that I found is that data templates, which are used to automatically calculate today's population based on official sources, have been removed and replaced with unsourced manual calculations. Several times now I have had to restore these templates after yet another unsourced, unexplained change.[1][2][3][4][5] I have now tagged the article to identify issues, and requested semi-protection, but the input by responsible editors who can update the article with accurate, sourced data is needed. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Cape Verde vs Cabo Verde

Please see the discussion on the title for Cape Verde/Cabo Verde. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Additional input needed to resolve RfC

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

The RfC at Talk:Eritrea#Location has turned circular and unresolveable, with about half a dozen parties sticking to their positions immovably no matter what is offered. I would suggest that an influx of fresh eyes on the matter would be of great benefit before it gets any more WP:LAME.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Denmark and the Kingdom of Denmark

I am amazed to find that there is a noteworthy sovereign state for which we essentially have no article at all. Denmark (officially the Kingdom of Denmark, but I would argue that WP:Commonname would suggest that Denmark is the appropriate designation) is a sovereign state consisting of three constituent countries: European Denmark, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. We have an article Denmark, the target of a redirect from Kingdom of Denmark, that treats only of the European territory, and where editors have refused to accept a lede that deals with the Kingdom as a whole (although its infobox treats of all three constituent countries, as though it belonged to an article that deals properly with the state). We also have adequate articles on Greenland and the Faroes as constituent countries, and one on the constitutional arrangement, but no real article on the sovereign state per se, so everything that should link to such an article is directed instead to the European territory.

This is (loosely, I appreciate that the degree of autonomy is beyond UK devolution) analogous to having articles on England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and on the Act of Union, but not having an article on the United Kingdom except a redirect pointing to England, and every UK relevant link pointing to England.

The issue is dealt with far better in the cases of Netherlands and France: it is a gross failure in the case of Denmark that there is a significant sovereign state that has no article. Kevin McE (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Notification of RFC at Talk:Singapore

Please see Talk:Singapore#RfC - Inclusion of sentence about Gallup poll for a current RFC about the lead of Singapore. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Countries/Archive 12 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Relevant RFC at North Korea

There is an RFC at Talk:North_Korea#Should_we_use_juche_in_the_infobox.3F about mentioning ideology in he infobox. Could do with some input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

"Official website" field in Template:Infobox country

Background: pinging @Wrestlingring: and @Canterbury Tail: for this. I had hesitated to revert myself. I notice similar reverts have been done on the United States page; I have not investigated deeply other country pages, nor found anything in the archives on that subject.

The question is whether the website in the infobox country template should be used to place the country's government website acceptable for this. On the one hand, I do not see how to fill this field if not by the government's website, and the mere existence of the field in the template suggests it is to be used. On the other hand, I am quite uncomfortable with its use, and maybe the field was just carried over from another template out of habit (the template documentation gives no description).

If it were up to me, I would ask to change the template to display "governmental website" or similar rather than simply "website". Any thoughts? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This template can also be used for geopolitical organisation, hence the presence of that field. CMD (talk) 12:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Should we ask it not to be used for countries in the template doc? Was it discussed in the past? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any past discussions, but the template is currently in the process of being merged, so now is a good time to ask for changes (or boldly make them, I can't see this garnering heavy opposition). CMD (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not even a change in the template itself, it's a change in the documentation, just so that it says not to use that field for gov sites. The fact that good-faith editors have used it this way suggests possible opposition, hence why I brought it here rather than on the template page. But yeah, if none else opposes in a week, I will add the necessary words. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add infrastructure to the template

I had put this already on the Talk page under template back in 2015 but had only few responses (see here); so I am also putting it here now in an effort to increase interest for this suggestion: I would like to suggest to have in the template a section heading called "infrastructure". Here we could put information and a link to transportation (which currently appears in the template under "See also"??) but also information and links to water supply and sanitation. Here we could suggest to people (I mean other editors) that they could draw on the information provided for many countries by this project which has created standardised pages for water supply and sanitation in many countries (or see the list here). However, that information should be double checked and only be seen as a starting point as it might in some cases be outdated. It is a good starting point though, and anyone who knows that country or the water sector in that country could probably quite easily add some useful content based on that. See also [here] on the talk page of User:Moxy . Another option could be to place a sub-heading unter the existing title of "Economy", but I am not sure if that would be better? - What do other people think, is "infrastructure" sufficiently important to show up somehow at the table of contents level? I think it would be as it affects many other aspects of the country. EvMsmile (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC) EvMsmile (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Moving List of countries and dependencies by population with no discussion

I opened a thread at Talk:List of countries and dependencies by population so those with the most knowledge on the subject could weigh in. The thing is the title says "List of countries" which Taiwan is, and an editor has tried to move it to "List of Sovereign States" which Taiwan is not. I guess it and other countries could be removed. Either way it should be looked at and discussed before another move attempt is made. All I care about is correctness for our readers and that those with more knowledge on the subject than I have taken a look-see before it's moved. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Germany about including Nazi Germany in Infobox

There is a relevant RFC at Talk:Germany#RFC:_Adding_Nazi_Germany_to_Infobox about including Nazi Germany in the infobox. This could do with some input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, a strange situation. About half the folks on the Talk page do not want Third Reich listed in the infobox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Germany#RFC:_Adding_Nazi_Germany_to_Infobox

So, at present, it looks like the Weimar Republic lasted from 1919 to 1949. I added Third Reich to the box yesterday and it was deleted by Thenigma. Rationale given: No consensus for this change, current discussion leaning against. Wikipedia has a huge article about the Third Reich so it seems to be just as relevant as the Weimar Republic Peter K Burian (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Albania Is this article in a neutral POV?

Note, added Feb. 9... User talk:Iaof2017 this is the User who reverted much of the content I had added.

His Talk page includes this note:

  An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. User talk:Iaof2017

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The article sounds like it was written by a PR agency for the country and much of it is not recent, with old information and 2010 to 2014 sources. I added a new section today with less pleasant information, fully cited with recent sources. See below in case someone has already reverted it.

Note: The Talk page sounds like the users are not keen on any changes; I would not be surprised if they reverted my added content. (I also edited the sentence about the European Union in the lede and inserted a 2017 citation to replace the one they had from years ago.)

The new section I added today:

Application to the European Union

Although Albania had received candidate status for EU membership in 2014 (based on their 2009 application) the EU has twice rejected full membership. {cite web |url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17679574 |title=Albania country profile |author= |date=December 15, 2016 |website=BBC News |publisher=BBC |access-date=February 8, 2017 |quote=The [2013] election was closely monitored by the EU, which has twice rejected Albania's membership application and warned that the poll would be "a crucial test" for its further progress towards integration in the bloc.}} The European Parliament warned government leaders in early 2017 that the parliamentary elections in June must be "free and fair" before negotiations could begin to admit the country into the Union. The MEPs also expressed concern about the country's "selective justice, corruption, the overall length of judicial proceedings and political interference in investigations and court cases" but the EU Press Release expressed some optimism: "It is important for Albania to maintain today's reform momentum and we must be ready to support it as much as possible in this process". "Foreign affairs MEPs assess reform efforts in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina". European Parliament. European Parliament. January 31, 2017. Retrieved February 8, 2017. Albania needs to implement EU-related reforms credibly, and ensure that its June parliamentary elections are free and fair, if it is to start EU accession negotiations {cite web |url=Albania and Bosnia fail to impress at EU membership meeting over democratic value concerns |title=Albania and Bosnia fail to impress at EU membership meeting over democratic value concerns |last=Culbertson |first=Alix |date=February 1, 2017 |website=Express |publisher=Express Newspapers Ltd., UK |access-date=February 8, 2017 |quote=Albania and Bosnia have stumbled at the first hurdle of becoming fully-fledged European Union (EU) members after MEPs questioned the credibility of their democratic values.}}

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I also added this content with recent citations from Forbes and the International Monetary Fund; doing my best to be Neutral.

Improving infrastructure and economy: Analysts with the U.S. magazine Forbes indicated that as of December 2016, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) was growing at 2.8 percent. However, the country had a Trade Balance of -9.7% and Unemployment was quite high at 17.3 percent. Forbes noted some factors that might make investment in Albania problematic: "Complex tax codes and licensing requirements, a weak judicial system, endemic corruption, poor enforcement of contracts and property issues, and antiquated infrastructure contribute to Albania's poor business environment making attracting foreign investment difficult. Albania’s electricity supply is uneven despite upgraded transmission capacities with neighboring countries."

However, Forbes also indicated some progress: "... with help from international donors, the government is taking steps to improve the poor national road and rail network, a long standing barrier to sustained economic growth. Inward FDI has increased significantly in recent years as the government has embarked on an ambitious program to improve the business climate through fiscal and legislative reforms. The government is focused on the simplification of licensing requirements and tax codes, and it entered into a new arrangement with the IMF for additional financial and technical support."[185]

The International Monetary Fund's January 24, 2017 report also offered some positive reinforcement: "Economic program remains on track ... good progress in implementing structural reforms ... Bank of Albania’s accommodative monetary policy stance remains appropriate ..."

The IMF inspectors who visited Tirana provided the following action plan: "Going forward, the main priorities should be: to continue expanding revenue to strengthen public finances and to ensure debt sustainability; reduce NPLs to strengthen financial stability and support credit recovery; and advance structural reforms to improve the business climate. Important progress has been made in these areas, and further efforts are needed to cement these gains. In this regard, strengthening of tax administration, broadening the tax base, and introduction of a value-based property tax remain important objectives. Improved public financial management will help ensure more efficient public spending and control of arrears. Rapid implementation of the strategy for resolving non-performing loans is needed to strengthen lending to the private sector. Structural reforms to enhance the business environment, address infrastructure gaps, and improve labor skills will be crucial to strengthen competitiveness." The Executive Board of the IMF will meet to discuss the disbursement of about €72.44 million to Albania in February 2017.[186]

Peter K Burian (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I added some new content to the Albania article as per the above note.

As expected, nearly all of that was deleted by a frequent User of that article. Only the content that puts Albania in a glowing light was retained. There are real problems with neutrality. WP:NPOV Peter K Burian (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Iaof2017 the User who reverted much of the content I had added.

His Talk page includes this note:

  An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of Igaalbania (talk · contribs · logs).
Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sock puppet for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful. User talk:Iaof2017

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Would appreciate new comments on Germany re: Infobox items

There have been debates in the Talk section about what should be included in the infobox section Formation, for Germany. Currently, one item is about the European Economic Community era (a preliminary attempt at some free trade), but no item re: the later European Union era.

And three important items are omitted, particularly the Third Reich.

1. Third Reich: Nazi Germany the period in German history from 1933 to 1945, when Germany was governed by a dictatorship under the control of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party (NSDAP).

2. The division: 1949 when two states emerged: History of Germany (1945–90) Federal Republic of Germany (FRG), commonly known as West Germany, . ... German Democratic Republic (GDR), commonly known as East Germany...]

3. German reunification .. of East Germany and West Germany. At least some of us working on the article believe that a) Third Reich should be added or b) the Formation section should be deleted if it cannot accurately depict the important formative aspects of the country.

Perhaps getting a few experienced editors involved - without any "attachment" to the Germany article - would help resolve this matter. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

User mass-changing country articles

A user, Hddty., has been mass-changing infoboxes of country articles to their preferred format (i.e. not specifying language names in infoboxes, changing infobox footnotes to general ones), without consulting this project. Since those changes range from benign to bad for accessibility (i.e. not specifying language names), I've mass-reverted most of them. Hope this is OK. They stopped after I let them know about the problematic nature of their edits on their talk page. Graham87 12:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of significant changes to featured Japan article

Please come participate in the discussion here. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Archive 12/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Countries.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Countries, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Opening sentence readability

I'll start off by saying that I'm not an active contributor to this project, but I'd like to make a recommendation on the opening sentences in country articles. Currently, I believe the opening sentences of these articles are too busy with with pronunciation and official name jargon that it hurts readability. (See MOS:LEADALT) For example:

Vietnam (UK: /ˌvjɛtˈnæm, -ˈnɑːm/, US: /ˌviːətˈnɑːm, -ˈnæm/ ^ⓘ; Vietnamese: Việt Nam [vîət nāːm] ^ⓘ), officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV; Vietnamese: Cộng hòa Xã hội chủ nghĩa Việt Nam (listen^ⓘ)), is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia. With an estimated 92.7 million inhabitants...

99% of readers don't care about the pronunciation and official name details. They scan past all of that that until they see "...is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula..." so they can keep reading. I'm sure most of you do it too. I am recommending that this WikiProject adopt a footnote policy for information like this in the lead. For example:

Vietnam, officially the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia. With an estimated 92.7 million inhabitants...

or

Vietnam is the easternmost country on the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia. With an estimated 92.7 million inhabitants...

I think this drastically improves readability and invites the reader in nicely into the lead, instead of asking them to strain their eyes just to read the first sentence. This policy was adopted over on the Video Games project for Japanese titles with success (WP:JFN). Thoughts? TarkusAB 22:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Notes

References

Nobody??? I might take this discussion to one of the more popular country pages with this issue then... TarkusAB 22:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: - Sounds like a great idea to me. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2017-06-09/Op-ed. Kaldari (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC on unrecognized bordering countries

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This stems from the current disagreement about the inclusion of the Republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) among bordering countries in Iran's lead. It raises the question of including also other self-proclaimed countries not recognized by any UN member (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, Republic of Somaliland, Donetsk People's Republic, Luhansk People's Republic and, in future, potentially others) among bordering countries in other articles on countries (which AFAIK is not directly covered by any relevant policy or guideline, such as WP:LEAD or WikiProject Countries#Lead section).

Should the articles about countries mention self-proclaimed entities not recognized by any UN member among bordering countries? Brandmeister^talk 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Survey

1. No, but with a possible efn note. Most articles appear to follow the long-standing standard - bordering countries are presumed to be sovereign UN states, as on most geographical maps and in major encyclopedias. As the Republic of Artsakh is one of the self-proclaimed entities not recognized by the UN community, it is not labelled on most geographical maps, so in my view this is WP:UNDUE. Also, as some entities not recognized by the UN are currently disputed territories, mentioning them among bordering countries is WP:POV. As my proposal to mention Artsakh in a footnote failed, Iran's article appears to be one of the few that mention non-UN entities among its bordering countries. Perhaps a relevant provision could also be made in related policies/guidelines. Brandmeister^talk 20:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
2. No, per WP:UNDUE, although I agree that a footnote is appropriate in such circumstances. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Yes I don't consider such proposal to be of undue weight. It just needs to be made very clear in the article that such country is unrecognised (I don't like how it is done in the Iran article, I think it needs to be placed last before recognised countries in a separate sentence). There also needs to be some defined limit, which would be no micronations. Inclusion of those is undue weight. Please, no mentioning of the Imperial Throne!😄 81.106.34.193 (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC) (User:My name is not dave, who has placed his account on enforced wikibreak).
4. No but I'd be ok with a footnote. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Either, leave to local consensus. Provided the territories in question are described as an unrecognized state etc. I don't see how including them is an NPOV issue. We're not saying Wikipedia endorses their claim to statehood (which would be absurd), just that they exist and they share a border. On the other hand I also don't see any reason to prescribe their inclusion/exclusion in all cases. It should be left to editorial judgement on individual articles, because conceivably there are some cases where the existence of a bordering unrecognized territory is significant (e.g. the Donetsk People's Republic is clearly relevent to our articles on both Ukraine and Russia), and some cases where it isn't (e.g. Iran doesn't appear to have any involvement or relations with the Artsakh Republic, so why bother mentioning it?). See Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. – Joe (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
6. No - does not seem to meet the definitions of Country and particularly Sovereign state mentions the role of recognition. If the WP:COMMONTERM or WP:WEIGHT of mentions are predominantly saying it as a nation, then perhaps a footnote. If it is a de Facto or de Jure state, then that would be said - but not that it is a country. Markbassett (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
7. Noting that this RFC has received interest from few of the regulars at List of states with limited recognition, who would normally be able to discuss this in a general and informed manner (I may advise editors there that it is here). I think the premise of saying "yes" or "no" in this RFC is a case of WP:CREEP. We don't need a general rule, we need editors to reach an editorial decision based on policies and guidelines, according to the facts of the individual situation. That having been said, one of the policies that must be taken in account is WP:WEIGHT. The prevalence of the view that these are states - and that includes both those with strictly no international recognition and those with little international recognition - is far below that of those that are undisputed or little-disputed (including all UN member states) and that difference needs be taken into account. I struggle to think of any article on which you could neutrally include Artsakh alongside Armenia and Azerbaijan on a list without qualification. So in the case in question I would either not list Artsakh or include it only as a footnote. Kahastok talk 19:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
8. Yes - Statehood is independent of recognition by other states as per Sovereign state#Declarative theory. As long as the state meets the criteria set out by the Montevideo Convention, i.e. if said state has a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states, then it should be included provided it is made clear that it is not recognised. The aforementioned criteria would exclude micronations from inclusions.-- Kzl55 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

   The problem with the Montevideo Convention is that it is in no way controlling international law, and its definition is severely lacking, and both under and over inclusive. U.S. states and Indian tribes meet the definition under the Montevideo Convention. Further, micronations are in fact recognized and are in fact members of the UN, so your point seems merit-less. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

   It may be your opinion that US states meet Montevideo, but others have other opinions. I've seen a whole spectrum of positions from the very inclusive to the very exclusive argued on Wikipedia. Per WP:NOR we as Wikipedians have no business determining whether any given entity meets Montevideo or not - that's for reliable sources to do. The real problem with Kzl55's argument is that in every case that this discussion affects you are likely to find sources arguing both sides. The argument treats Montevideo as clear-cut and unambiguous, where in fact it is open to wide interpretation. As an aside, note also that no micronation is a member of the UN - you're thinking presumably of microstates. Kahastok talk 21:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

9. Objection the situation with each disputed/non-country/frozen conflict is unique. In this case Atlrtsakh is defacto independent and a disputed territory hetween two other countries in the list of bordering states. As written "is bordered to the northwest by Armenia, the de facto independent Republic of Artsakh, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhchivan; to the north by the Caspian Sea..." is appropriate because it is a frosen conflict and Iran is not a perty so we are not making a political statement about Iran's territory. I would not agree to listing the rebel areas of Ukraine as "bordering" Ukraine or Russia as that is a hot conflict with actively shifting front lines and involves Russia invading Ukrainian territory. Legacypac (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
10. No - Because statehood is determined by the recognition of other nations and international organizations. A footnote would be acceptable if the footnote clearly explains that recognition (or lack of it) of the putative "state". Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
11. No as default position, but a footnote or similar could be apt in some cases as suggested by others when WEIGHT demonstrates de facto existence. Pincrete (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
12. No, footnote (Summoned by bot) Undue, and needs to be UN recognised just for simplicity and to stave off nationalist zealots. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
13. No as a user with little experience in geopolitical editing – this legitimises such entities to the point of WP:UNDUE. For example, labelling Hutt River Principality as a country bordering Australia would verge on the absurd, so some standard must be applied, and that standard exists. No objection to an efn. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

    FTR, the distinction between a micronation and a state with limited recognition is well-established in the literature. If we were to list the states with limited recognition such as Artsakh, it would not mean listing micronations such as Hutt River. Kahastok talk 17:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

14. Yes - with efn or other indication this is not a fully (or at all as the case may be) recognized country. The reality on the ground is that an Armenian proxy entity is on that stretch of border. Same is true of other unrecognized states that de-facto control ground (if it is just a claim - not interesting) - as the geopolitical reality is that if you drive over that stretch of border - you'll be arrested by Armenians. If there is a shooting conflict between Iran and Armenia - this area will be involved as well. Listing Principality of Hutt River would be UNDUE and absurd. Listing Artkash, South Ossetia, Luhansk/Donetsk, Transnistria, etc. - is not. The question to be asked should be - is a military force in actual control of this region.Icewhiz (talk) 06:48, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    For visiting Artsakh, which the UN considers a de jure part of Azerbaijan, you're currently required to gain a permission from Azerbaijani authorities (same as Crimea in case of Ukraine, for example). I don't think there's a serious border control enforced at the Artsakh border, given it's not diplomatically recognized. So theoretically after getting an Azerbaijani permission, you can cross the territory at some uncontrolled stretch of the border. Brandmeister^talk 08:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    De-jure, Ukraine might claim soverignity over Crimea. De-facto - it is an internal flight (or ferry - bridge coming soon) from Russian turf. Should you attempt to enter by Ukraine - you will stop at a Russian checkpoint. Regarding visiting Artsakh - Azerbaijani permission papers won't get you far. Nor would crossing over the semi-hot border from Azerbaijan be easy. Entering from Armenia - would be easy - as you might see here - Visa policy of Artsakh. De-facto - the Armenian proxy force controls this territory. The reality on the ground is such that Azerbaijan has absolutely no sway internally - though visiting Artsakh will prevent you (unless there is a detachable stamp provision - might be) from entering Azerbaijan. [6]. Regarding the border with Azerbaijan - it is highly militarized with a hot shooting conflict occasionally (e.g. in 2016) - Attempting to cross over in a "uncontrolled stretch" - quite possibly will get you shot by the Aremenians or the Azeris. Diplomatic recognition - has little to do with the actual physical reality here.Icewhiz (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    You're talking about the Nagorno-Karabakh line of contact. The border does not appear to be militarized alongside Iranian state border and, probably, from the north (at least not to such an extent). Brandmeister^talk 08:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    The border with Iran (inside NK proper, and in the territory controlled by the Armenian military between NK and Armenia) - is probably less guarded. However Azerbaijani permission is irrelevant (both because NK authorities, in control of the ground, won't recognize it, and because the Azeris aren't likely to grant such permission). To the best of my knowledge - [7][8] - "legal" (per NK) entry to NK is only possible via Armenia. So - if you want to play hide and seek with Iranian and NK/Armenia border guards.... I guess that is possible, probably not advisable.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

15. Yes, provided of course the border with the entity is described in reliable sources. If you have an infobox, ideally you would write, what? Borders with "Armenia (military occupying Azerbaijan)"? Borders with "Azerbaijan (Armenian occupation)"? Borders with "Azerbaijan" without mentioning there is more than one government and border involved? The first two options are each incomplete without the other, and the last is unacceptable because if hostilities broke out people would rush to Wikipedia to find themselves confused that a border war is going on with a state that doesn't border Iran. It is optimal to say the entity name, say it is internationally unrecognized, say who it is aligned with, say who it is formally considered owned by by diplomats from abroad, say who runs it etc. But if space is ever lacking, the name with link gets you the rest. Wnt (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    As has been noted above, such reliable sources, including reference works, are in minority. And equating a state border with the border of a self-proclaimed non-UN entity is mixing apples and oranges. Specifically, per WP:UNDUE, "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject". The only place I can think of for such cases is an explanatroy footnote. Brandmeister^talk 14:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    I feel skeptical about that, but I'm not going to argue about it - that's an article specific content problem. If a large majority of sources list the bordering countries of Iran and omit that, then you can follow the sources without concern, but that varies by article. Wnt (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

16. No, but a footnote may be appropriate. (see below 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)) The lede of an article is not the appropriate place to be mentioning the claims of non-UN states, and would be undue weight. A footnote of appropriate length or a sentence or two in a "Geography" section could clarify that the de jure country does not actually control that area of the border. From a public policy standpoint, if these were included in the lede, it would just attract more edit warring which can easily be avoided. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    You're treating these unrecognized states as if they were mere territorial claims, like various parties make in the Himalayas or the South China Sea. But, I mean, the Wikipedia article ought to represent the facts on the ground. If you could physically walk into a territory and see street signs and post offices for the Artsakh Republic, then that is not some fringe claim, it's what is. Wnt (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    It's fine if it appears in a footnote or in another section as long as it's not in the lede. The territorial disputes of Armenia and Azerbaijan are not so relevant that it has to be mentioned in the lede of a third country. The respective ledes for Armenia and Azerbaijan mention the dispute, as they clearly should. Wikipedia articles on countries already have issues fitting all of the most relevant topics about their own country without devoting space to those of others. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

    I must emphasize that the question above wasn't about the lead: "Should the articles about countries mention self-proclaimed entities not recognized by any UN member among bordering countries?" - that is an extreme and unreasonable position as written, not just a soft comment about where to put what. I think we ought to all recognize that the main article text needs to mention such things, and indeed, should mention regions even when they are not even slightly claiming independence, e.g. "Canada occupies much of the continent of North America, sharing land borders with the contiguous United States to the south, and the US state of Alaska to the northwest." I would still say though that the lead depends on the article - for example, Albania mentioned Kosovo in the lead in 2005, long before the province had claimed independence. [9] Wnt (talk) 10:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

    You're correct, but most irrelevant. Just like ledes of country articles, the country articles themselves are balancing acts which involve figuring what relevant information about the country is in or not. Mentioning Alaska in the Canada is fine, because the US indisputably controls Alaska, so that's not a good comparison. I guess a more nuanced take would be Usually no, but they should be assessed on a case by case basis, and a footnote for self-governing regions should generally be appropriate. The "among bordering countries" is also problematic. If they are mentioned in the article text, it should be specified how they are different from the recognized countries. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

17. Under no circumstances- it has no recognition by any UN member states. It is an unrecognized nation, even less legitimate than Kurdistan, which is unmentioned in the leads of Iraq and Turkey. I don't understand the argument for including it. There are formal mechanisms in place for the international recognition of states. As none of these have been successful, it is not a state. Again, I don't see any merit in claims that it should be included. Individual U.S. states recognizing it are beyond irrelevant - the Executive Branch is the sole organ of the U.S. government capable of granting recognition to countries. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 04:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
18. Rarely. IMO, if a region claims to be independent, its claim is notable, and no country enforces (or even tries to enforce) other rule over that area, then it should be listed as a bordering country. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
19. No. Stick with the weight of international recognized countries and let the world sort it out. We don't want to get into the business of trying to weigh assorted unrecognized claims that someplace is a new country. Alsee (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
20. No - Somaliland, Donetsk, Transnistria, and other similar territories might be self-governing, but they are not considered sovereign states by the overwhelming majority of UN members. If we were to treat them as though they are, then we are in effect suggesting that they do have international recognition, or that their self-proclaimed independence is widely endorsed. This is incorrect, and per everyone else, runs contrary to WP:UNDUE. Kurtis ^(talk) 03:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
21. Mu Political geography is complex and changes over time. Each case should be judged on its merits rather than trying to build a hard rule around a recent institution. Andrew D. (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

    @Andrew Davidson:, mostly out of curiosity - but maybe also a slight help to whomever closes this. In the context of this RfC, what would be the difference between "mu" (negative in Japanese and Korean, so WP says) and "no" (negative in English)? - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

    An answer of "no" would tend mean that we have a rule which says that we should not have such content. "Mu" means that that the OP is begging the question. My position is that we should not have a general rule but that each case should be judged on its merits. My position is based on the policies WP:BURO, WP:CREEP and WP:NOTLAW which counsel against such proliferation of vexatious rules. See also hard cases make bad law. Andrew D. (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

22. No, but in such cases perhaps add a footnote such as "Additionally, the unrecognized states of ...".  Sandstein  12:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
23. Yes. Wikipedia needs to best reflect the situation on the ground in my opinion. These articles should mention these entities as neighboring states with limited recognition. i.e.

    In the case of Iran I would have the article say:

    "Iran is bordered by the following, in a clockwise fashion, starting from the North; the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Gulf of Oman, the Persian Gulf, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan's exclave of Nakhchivan, Armenia, the mostly unrecognised Republic of Artsakh, and Azerbaijan."

    In the case of Armenia I would have the article say:

    "Armenia is bordered by the following, in a clockwise fashion, starting from the North; Georgia (country), Azerbaijan, the mostly unrecognised Republic of Artsakh, Iran, Azerbaijan's exclave of Nakhchivan, and Turkey."

    In the case of Azerbaijan I would have the article say:

    "Azerbaijan is bordered by the following, in a clockwise fashion, starting from the North; Russia, the Caspian Sea, Iran, Armenia, and Georgia (country)."

    (Note: It will naturally state elsewhere in the Azerbaijan article about the break-away region.)

    In the case of the Republic of Artsakh I would have the article say:

    "The Republic of Artsakh is bordered by the following, in a clockwise fashion, starting from the North; Azerbaijan, Iran, and Armenia."

    I know from a personal perspective, that if I was traveling to a certain country and I wished to cross the border into a neighboring country, then I would like to know what the current status was of the territory that I was crossing into was. Wiz9999 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

    • Edited to add: Note: the only states I would consider doing this with are the ones very strictly defined on List of states with limited recognition, meaning Donetsk and Luhansk are out, as these are not unrecognised states. - Wiz9999 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
24. Yes for entities maintaining de facto control, but with clear description of the status; I think Wiz9999's verbose response here covers that pretty well. But only when it's not ridiculous; I wouldn't include microstates, for example. But it would seem inaccurate not to mention Transnistria as bordering Moldova or Ukraine, for example. — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC) via the Feedback request service
    • Edited to add: I would probably not expect to see non-UN-member / not-widely recognised states mentioned in an infobox row, but possibly in an infobox footnote. But I could probably be persuaded either way here. — OwenBlacker (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
25. yes, and no, that is, yes but with due weight, just about as OwenBlacker (just above), or Sandstein (higher up) explained - Nabla (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
26. Yes but use a dotted line - There is something that makes me wonder though. Would it be violating WP:NPOV for doing one or the other as it is a controversial issue? I do think the best way to avoid this would be to use a dotted line for it. Cartography has more decisions than people think as it's wondered if they should use the current situation which can change from day to day or use the official borders and in that case, who do they listen to? I think a dotted line would tell people that it is not exactly recognised by all countries yet but there are claims to it so I suggest a dotted line on maps. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 02:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

    I assume you are referring to the maps listed in said country's articles. Yes, this is quite a standard practice when showing unrecognised countries on maps. However, the principal discussion here I believe is with regards to the list of neighboring countries in the lead section of the country's article. - Wiz9999 (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

27. Yes, though indicating the status in some manner. The information is important and relevant. DGG ( talk ) 16:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
28. No (invited by the bot) Does not fulfill the common meaning of the word "country". North8000 (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

    I find your reasoning here interesting, in that you based it specifically on the word "Country", and not say "Sovereign State" or something. I'm curious, what to you would be the common meaning of the word "country"? Under this definition would the Vatican City be considered a country? Taiwan? How about the Cook Islands or Palestine? I will point out, none of those places are UN members. - Wiz9999 (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Countries

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 14:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Which level of country to list in a table (England/Scotland vs UK)

Hi all. Wikipedia has many tables of things that have a column labelled "Country": ones I edit range from List of battles and other violent events by death toll to List of Yes concert tours (2000s–10s). What I see is a lot of editing back and forth over whether the country listed should be the United Kingdom, or should be England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland. List of Yes concert tours (2000s–10s) long used to say England, Scotland etc., although it now says UK. List of battles and other violent events by death toll has long said UK, but -- and I my prompt to come here today -- there's currently an edit dispute there (e.g., this). Personally, I feel for consistency we should say UK because we don't split the US into States, the UAE into Emirates or the Soviet Union into Republics. But, knowing Wikipedia, there are probably editors who feel deeply that we should do each of those. But I haven't gone against any longstanding status quos.

Is there any actual guideline or advice here? I found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries, which supports UK over England/Scotland, but is answering a different question, and wasn't entirely conclusive. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

There is, to my knowledge, no hard and fast rule beyond the basics like WP:NPOV. That said, I would suggest that it is not neutral in general to treat modern England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as though they were equivalent in status to sovereign states such as France, China or the US. They are not.

(Of course, this is in general. If you're talking about footballers then clearly it won't normally make much sense to insist on referring to the UK. And there's the standard admonishment to avoid anachronism. And so on.)

Those making the case the other way have tended - in the slightly-different context of lists explicitly of countries - to argue primarily based on the use of the word "country". The argument holds that you have to treat as a "country" anything that you can reliably source as ever having been called a "country" - though in practice if you suggest other examples (and there are many) they tend to get rejected out of hand. Kahastok talk 19:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This problem often arises with people rather than places, the general rule there is that the person must identify, and be identified, as Sc, Eng, Welsh or Ir, otherwise they are British. Because it is more common for Sc, We, N.Ir to identify as such (the English generally can't be bothered - part of our cultural arrogance!) - the result is that fewer people are described as English on WP. I don't think it is possible to make a hard-and-fast rule about places. Some events are distintively E,S,W or NI, sometimes the clearest description would be the component country, otherwise default to UK, but I wish people would not get so hot-under-the collar about this. If the decision were mine alone, of the example you give, I would put 'Lockerbie' in Scotland, because it is more exact and the event acquired some distinctively Scottish elements, and is generally thought of (in UK) as 'Scottish', but I would put 'Westminster' as UK, because the UK Parliament was under attack. As Kahastok suggests, the four countries compete seperately in most sports events (and Sc+Eng have their own leagues for football) - except the Olympics. The nearest comparison I can make to US, is that sometimes it would be more useful to say that something happened in Alaska or Hawaii, or with a general descriptor like New England, mid-West etc. rather than US. … … ps personally, I would think that saying BOTH Scotland (or England) and UK was overkill, don't most people know where Scotland is? Even if they don't exactly understand the constitutional subtleties of Eng/GB/UK, which half of us don't! Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

In an article such as List of battles and other violent events by death toll we would never even consider populating a field headed "country" with "Alaska" or "New England". If the parallel is the US, then the only possible choice is United Kingdom. Kahastok talk 21:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidance is that we should not presume the reader necessarily knows such things: thus, it makes sense to me to use the best known level, which is "UK" or "USA", rather than terms like "New England" or "Wales". Bondegezou (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Alaska and New England, are of course NOT countries, therefore they should never be in infobox as such, I wasn't suggesting that they should. Pincrete (talk) 09:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The "nearest equivalent" is probably not the US, it's more likely to be somewhere like the United Arab Emirates, a federation of historically independent emirates. But even there, "nearest equivalent" does not mean that we should treat the UK in the same way. The position in the UK is complex. Setting that aside, the overriding issue should be the prohibition on edit-warring, and discussion on each article talk page. Consistency would be both impossible to achieve and, in my view, unnecessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The country listed should be the United Kingdom. I've always equated England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland with Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec etc etc or Tennessee, Alaska, North Carolina etc etc. PS: Note that the world map on this WikiProject shows the UK entirely in one color, as it should. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC: History in the Lead Section

The consensus on how much "history should be included in the lead section of a modern country's article should depend on the country.

Cunard (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How much "history" should be included in the Lead Section of a modern country's article? How much is too much and how much is too little? For example, Finland's history represents about half the lead, Canada's represents about a third, Switzerland's is less than a quarter, whereas Federated States of Micronesia has almost none at all.

A subquestion, for anyone really interested, is what is the appropriate balance between pre-modern and modern history in the lead.

Any consensus from this discussion will be added to the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• It depends on the country. I don't see how you can make a hard and fast rule. Some countries might have little relevant history as an entity (e.g. a newly formed federation of several disparate states with distinct histories). Other countries might have little modern relevance (other than becoming a country by a quirk of history), yet be steeped in history. Same goes for modern/pre-modern - in some cases, Greece and Israel come to mind, the far ago ancient history might have been the impetus for the modern formation. In other cases ancient history might even unknown or not reliably recorded (e.g. Australia) - leading to reliance on archaeological / anthropological / fossil evidence of the pre-contact civilizations.Icewhiz (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Leave to local consensus per Icewhiz and per WP:CREEP. The appropriate balance will depend entirely on the article in question and I see little value in attempting to enforce uniformity. Kahastok talk 18:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
• Lead Section as a portion of the total text The correct course would be to restrict the lead section to an approximate percentage of words of the main text of the whole article (i.e. excluding references, bibliography, etc). This would follow the lead section's style rules, and specifically the rule about its length: "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." While, indeed, every Wikipedia article is a different animal, the rules are quite specific in that there should be a modicum of uniformity. We should follow the established rule in this too and accordingly ascertain the approximate length of the lead section (which is "not a news-style lead or lede paragraph") for every article; not just articles with biographies or about countries. -The Gnome (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Some editors have misunderstood so perhaps it's better that I elaborate a bit. I did not suggest that all articles about countries should have the same amount of text about their history in the lead. I suggested that the length of the text in the lead paragraph should reflect the length of the text in the rest of the article, i.e. in the article's main body. I'm suggesting ratios (per MOS:LEAD) and not absolutes. Articles with different totals of words in their History sections would reflect this difference in the respective leads. Thus, there is no question of "limiting" or "exaggerating" the lead; it'll be a function of the whole. Every country's history is indeed different - and this is why we have articles with varying lengths! The main texts are what defines the leads. -The Gnome (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• It depends on the country: Different countries have different things about them that are notable, so imposing uniformity could be very restrictive in some cases while requiring uninteresting filler in others. Different countries will have different sorts of histories that are divided up in different ways. For example, for an article about Iraq it would make a lot of sense to at least mention this this was one of the cradles of cradles of civilization, while in an article about Chile, the recent economic structure might be more interesting to feature. The examples above given look perfectly fine in all their diversity. OtterAM (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
• It depends on the country. Per everyone else except User:The Gnome. Countries are all very different from each other; there is no productive way to say that all countries articles must have this much amount of history in the lead. _{Adotchar| reply here} 09:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abkhazia infobox

There is currently a dispute on the Abkhazia article about whether to include the infobox featuring the Republic of Abkhazia (its flag, symbols, etc.) The Republic of Abkhazia is a partially-recognized country. Other partially-recognized country articles (such as South Ossetia and Transnistria) have infoboxes representing the partially-recognized state. With Abkhazia, there is no infobox. Whenever someone tries to put the infobox back on the Abkhazia article, it gets reverted. Currently, that infobox is not on any English-language Wikipedia article, though it is on nearly every Abkhazia article in other languages. It doesn't make sense that the Abkhazia article doesn't have an infobox while other partially-recognized countries do.LumaP15 (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ambazonia

I'd be interested in the project's thoughts on the above article. It's the top hit for the subject on Google, so obviously it's important that it's reliable. To me, it reads like an advocacy page, rather than a Neutral article. It's almost completely unsourced, and of those few (3) that it has, the first is a blog, the second is a broken link (but wasn't independent anyway), and the third, the only vaguely good one, is over 10 years old. There's a 2011 debate about the lack of neutrality on the Talkpage, but it didn't get very far, ending with the (self-appointed?) Consul General declaring the editor's efforts to be "treasonable"! To me, it just doesn't look right, but I'd be interested in others' thoughts. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I should have added; the, few, reports on this issue that I can find, e.g. this [10] indicate that it is obviously an ongoing, sensitive and controversial area which needs careful handling on here. All the more reason for needing a Neutral article. KJP1 (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on transliterated and Russian names of Belarus' in the lede

There is currently an RfC about the transliterated and Russian names of Belarus' in the page's opening paragraph. Your input would be appreciated. It can be found here. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Timelines in main pages

Are timelines acceptable in main pages of countries' or country groups' as can be seen at Nordic countries#Timeline? This has also been added to Baltic states page, but I have removed it. If I remember correctly these were removed at some point from every pages regarding cities, countries or country groups, but I cannot seem to find the discussion about it. Any help would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_folk_song

You are welcome to discuss the newly created {{Infobox folk song}} and its future here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamtam90 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC

There is RfC in the Jordan article about the etymology section. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

List of ISO 3166 country codes

I would appreciate any suggestions for improvements to the List of ISO 3166 country codes. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk contribs 15:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

How is it not a redundant content fork of ISO 3166-1? Kahastok talk 17:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Category:Swaziland has been nominated for discussion

Category:Swaziland, which is within the scope of this wikiproject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Eswatini. The nomination includes proposals to similarly rename 434 sub-categories of Category:Swaziland. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

slavery stats

Could I ask for some comments on the inclusion of slavery stats at Talk:Dominican Republic#Slavery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Request for input on proposed Saudi Vision 2030 section in Saudi Arabia

There's a discussion at Talk:Saudi Arabia on including a brief summary of the main economic aspects of the Saudi Vision 2030 program. I've suggested some options for this, which editors here are invited to give feedback on. Thanks. Tarafa15 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Republic of Macedonia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Republic of Macedonia, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming, along with hundreds of its subcategories. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

RFC on changing demonym links from linking to the same word to linking to demographics information

Should demonym links in all country infoboxes be changed from linking to the article on that word to linking to demographics for the country? For example change demonym = [[Danes|Danish]]|Dane to demonym = [[Demographics of Denmark|Danish]]|[[Demographics of Denmark|Dane]].

21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Survey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that APG1984 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [11], [12], [13], [14])

— Note: Sashko1999 is indefinitely blocked for violating a topic ban. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• No the existing links are fine. This was a WP:POINTy campaign by Sashko1999‎ after failing to prevail in Macedonia related issues. If someone clicks on the demonym "Dane" they are in all likelihood looking for the Danes article. That particular article, for example, offers a link to the Demographics of Denmark article right at the top if you were looking for different information. As another example, how could "Canadian" link to anything other than Canadians? The links are correct on the face of it, if the relevant articles need more information/links about current demographics or such, the individual articles on demonyms/groups can be corrected. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• No, per DIYeditor. --Khajidha (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• No without any doubt. I have provided a lengthy explanation here on why such move is unjustified and controversial. A short answer is that move doesn't serve wikipedia (as mentioned above), ignores basic rules of linguistics and ethnology, and is used as an awkward attempt to WP:PUSH an obvious case of non WP:NPOV. Argean (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• No ...seems to be a missunderstanding of the pupose of the field. Citizens of the USA are called Americans... Citizens from Canada are called Canadians etc .. I can see a lot of demonym articles need some help...but no reason to unlink all the parent term articles.--Moxy (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes without any doubt, I already explanied here why. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Definitely No What would be the point of changing the logical target of a wlink to something which is less sensible? The demography articles are useful but are certainly not where the reader would expect to end up. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 16:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. The existing links go in any event to an article that to a large extent is about demographics (as well as a few other things) - and always (or nearly always) contains a link to the full demographics article. There no reason to send our readers down an unclear piped link (which would violate some MOS thing or other regarding piped links). Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Sort of. Not specifically an article on the demographics. But "demonym" means "the term we use for people from this country" (by which we generally mean its citizens/nationals/subjects). Yes, many terms like "Dane" and "Danish" are ambiguous, referring both to ethnicity (there are third- or fourth-generation Minnesotans who are ethnic Danes, right?) and citizenship/place of birth. The term "demonym" refers to the latter, so why should a demonym link to an article exclusively about the former? The title of an article isn't what determines whether it's the appropriate target for a link, it's the scope of the information in it that determines this. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• Yes. Agree with Sashko1999--APG1984 (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

So just to be clear here you think its best to change the link lets say at Canada (an FA article) from Canadians (a GA article) to Demographics of Canada? So unlink the article about the people and link the article about population density, ethnicity, religious affiliations?--Moxy (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

In this case shouldn't be changes, because the article Canadians isn't about the ethnic group, but about the all citizens of Canada. Also, it's questionable did exist ethnic group Canadians, they exist in the Canadian censuses from 1996, but generally in Canada and in the world by Canadians are understood all citizens of Canada regerdless of their ethnicity.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-and-nationalities-of-canada.html

Canada is a multicultural country with a total population of around 35 million, or around 0.5% of the world's population. The most populous province is Ontario, with 13 million people, followed by Quebec, with 8 million, and British Columbia, with 4.6 million. The largest city in Canada is Toronto, followed by Montreal. Most people living in Canada self-identify as "Canadian". However, Canada is one of the most multicultural countries in the world, and responses to ethnic origin surveys are incredibly diverse. The following is a list of the ethnicities that the largest number of Canadians self-identify as. All numbers are pulled from the 2016 Census.

Although all citizens of Canada are considered Canadians, many Canadians also feel that is the term that best represents their ethnicity. Canadian is the largest self-identified ethnic group in Canada. Prior to European arrival, indigenous peoples (Inuit, Metis, and First Nations) lived in Canada. By the late 1850s, Canada had received many immigrants with origins including English, French, Scottish, Irish, German, Italian, and Chinese. People from a diverse set of ethnic backgrounds can identity as "Canadian". Sashko1999 (talk) 12:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the demonym for Canada currently, rightly links to an article about the people to whom that demonym refers: The people of Canada. The demonym for Denmark links, instead, to an article not about people to whom that demonym, when used as a demonym, refers (the people of Denmark), but to an article about people to whom that term when used as an ethnonym refers (people of Danish ethnic/cultural heritage, wherever they live in the world, for however many generations since their ancestors left Denmark). Sashko1999 wants that demonym to link to an article about the people of Denmark, comparable to the corresponding link on the Canada article. For Denmark, Demographics of Denmark is as close as we currently get to that. It's by no means an argument that demonyms should uniformly link to Demographics of X articles. It's an argument that right now it's the best we can do for Denmark. Largoplazo (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• There is a genuine problem here: for many countries, the demonym derived from the country's name can also by an ethnonym, referring to the major ethnic group of that country. The demonym field in the infobox is meant to refer to cirizens of the country irrespective of ethnicity, so turning it into a link to the ethnic group is misleading. Not all of the citizens belong to the major ethnic group and not all members of the ethnic group are citizens of the country. It's definitely not great to have the link in Russia be for Russians, which according to the article make up 81% of the country's population) or the one in Vietnam be for Vietnamese people, which are only one among over fifty recognised ethnic groups. One acceptable solution in such cases is to link to the demographics article. Another, is not to link at all: this infobox field is there to tell readers how to form the adjective of the country's name, it's not there to provide (or link to) content. What is definitely not a solution – and I'm commenting on it only because it has been proposed in this thread – is to attempt to rewrite articles like Vietnamese people so they're somehow both about the ethnicity and the country's population. This is a non-starter: the scope of articles should follow the extent of the encyclopedic topic, it shouldn't be based on the messy ambiguities of the English language. And needless to say – the ethnonym/demonym problem doesn't arise if there's no ethnonym at all: so cases like Canada, Pakistan or Indonesia aren't relevant here (unless we want to aim for absolute consistency, which isn't a good idea). – Uanfala (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Completely agree with everything you wrote, I'm saying the same all the time, but here some people don't understand. As you said, in many countries the demonym is also an ethnonym, referring to the major ethnic group of that country and because i'm reacting, i'm saying that the link for the demonym can't go to the major ethnic group, because on that way the other ethnicities who live in that country are excluded. You said that in Russia ethnic Russians are 81% and the link for the demonym goes to that ethnic group, but in that case what we are doing with the other 19% of the population, they are not Russian residents?, of course that they are, and because the link should go to demographics of Russia because there are included all ethnic groups who live in Russia. Sashko1999 (talk) 12:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I could go for the complete delinking of this field. --Khajidha (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's one of the solutions, but for me is better the links to go to the demographics of the countries, that is and suggested to the many of the articles about the ethnic groups. Here is one example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelanders On the top writes: This article is about Icelanders as an ethnic group. For information about residents or nationals of Iceland, see Demographics of Iceland. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I could actually go all the way to the complete removal of demonyms from the infobox. They are not used in other language wikipedias (actually not used in other languages overall), they are scarcely used outside wikipedia in general, and the more you dig on them the more you realize that they are nothing but a source of utter confusion, since even the definition itself is too vague to even be debated. --Argean (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If a demonym field isn't present in the infoboxes in other language wikipedias, then this likely has to do with the greater predictability of the demonyms in that language. Again, English is messy. Knowing the country's name doens't guarantee that you'll also know the demonym. Do you say Singaporean or Singaporese? What's the word for someone from Myanmar? Why do you drop the "-land" from Thailand but not from Greenland?, etc. – Uanfala (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I do agree with you on the messiness of the English language, so allow me to take a step back and side with the option of delinking completely the demonyms. I just can't bear to see onomastics being misused and manipulated to serve obscure objectives. Indeed demonyms are a rather useful, although recently invented, linguistic construct, in the sense that they are helpful when dealing with the unpredictability of the English language. But that's all. They do not serve any other purpose and definitely they don't have any deeper semiological content. Ethnology has been around for centuries without the need of creating such a term as the demonym. If we have to review the process of ethnogenesis of all modern people to decide if their respective articles are good enough to conform with such a shallow linguistic construct with vague definition, then let's make our life easier. Delinking the demonyms indeed seems like a good idea. --Argean (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, but... it is sad that most nation/people articles are written about ethnic groups, while they could be about the nation and the ethnic group most often carrying the same name. The way the Greeks article is introduced (basically, The Greeks or Hellenes are an ethnic group native to...) seems to imply that citizens of Greece not belonging to the ethnic group are not Greek, while they are. We should try to use wording (and the philosophy that goes with it) such as Danes are a nation and ethnic group, The French are an ethnic group and nation who are identified with the country of France, Canadians are people identified with the country of Canada. Place Clichy (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We can't change the articles about the ethnic groups, we must resolve this without changing that. The two solutions are the links to go to the demographics of the countries and the current links to be deliking, for me the first solution is much better. And why your answer is NO when you said that in the case of Greeks seems that people who are not ethnic Greeks aren't Greek citizens, this is just one example, they are many like this, we must change that. Sashko1999 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing everything you touch. Also you are ignoring the WP:ANI thread about you. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

We are here to discuss, not to be silent. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Why can't we change the articles? The distinction is vague and not always made in English usage. The proposed changes to the demonym articles make more sense to me than your proposed change to link to the demographics page. --Khajidha (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Because the articles about the ethnic groups are not articles about all the citizens of the countries, the name itself tells that they are articles about the ethnic groups and should stay like that, we will make them now to look like they cover all the citizens of the countries?, we can't because the purpose of these articles is not that, the propose is the people to read about the ethnic groups. Uanfala already said and I agree that such changes are unacceptable. My propose is very simple and correct and the changes will be finished fast, so, we shouldn't complicate the things. Sashko1999 (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The article Danes should be about all danes. And the same for all such articles. Tgat you and Uanfala find that unacceptable is balznced out by myself and several others who have proposed just that. It doesn't matter what those aeticles say they are about if it is determined that they are malformed, they will be changed.--Khajidha (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Make a survey about it and if the majority support your idea, then will be changed, until that, nothing will be changed. Sashko1999 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Kind of funny you saying that, when you have been trying to change the target of the links without majority support. --13:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but my changes were reverted and we opened a discussion about them. The changes about the Danes also will be reverted and if you want open a discussion about it that the articles about the ethnic groups should be and articles who will cover all the citizens of the countries where that ethnic group is dominant. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No: per DIYeditor above. (Question: Is this RfC consideration still taken seriously? I ask in light of the earlier blocking of Sashko19999 at WP:ANI.) - Wiz9999 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

I changed the links of the demonyms because there were putted wrong links, I already explained why, but I will explain again. First, we need to differentiate that demonym and ethnonym are not the same thing, the DEMONYM refers to all citizens of one country, and the ETHNONYM refers to people of a particular ethnic group. There is a explanation here what is demonym. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonym is a word that identifies residents or natives of a particular place, which is derived from the name of that particular place. So, why for example the demonym Danish/Dane is going to the link Danes if the demonym is a word that identifies RESIDENTS OR NATIVES of a particular place?, did that's mean that in Denmark lives just ethnic Danes?, apsolutely no, in Denmark lives many other ethnic groups and they are also Danes by citizenship or by birth place. Because the link for the demonym Danish/Danes should go to the link demographics of Denmark because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Denmark. Sashko1999 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dane is the word for a person from Denmark. Its root meaning is a person of purely Danish heritage, but it does not mean only that. --Khajidha (talk) 13:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999 First of all please read WP:INDENT and WP:MINOR immediately. No seriously if you continue editing ignoring these rules of wikipedia it means that you do that in purpose to disrupt the pages. Secondly I've tried very patiently to explain that demonyms and ethnonyms can be exactly the same and we don't need to change anything. E.g. Danes are both an ethnic group (thus the ethnonym) and a nation (thus a demonym for the nationals of the country). The current link redirects to Danes that reads This article is about Danes as a nation and ethnic group. Read some history and ethnology, find some good scientific sources to support your claims (which I'm sorry, they don't exist) and then you can start talking about demonyms and ethnonyms. Argean (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Dane is a word for a peron of Denmark, but also for an ethnic Dane, so, it has double meaning, but when we talk about the demonym Dane, we mean on a person from Denmark, and that person can be of any ethnicity, because the link can't go to the ethnic Danes, with that we discriminate all people who are from Denmark, and are not ethnic Danes. Sashko1999 (talk) 14:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

So what is needed is an expansion of the Dane article to cover the meaning so it matches the style and content of other Demonym pages. What I'm seeing here is a problem with just one article not every link.--Moxy (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

We need to explain that the demonym Dane refers to all persons from Denmark, and not just to the ethnic Danes, but how we will explain that if we linking the demonym Dane to the ethnic group Danes, it's really apsurd and as I said with that we discriminate all people who are from Denmark, and are not ethnic Danes. Here is one example of discrimination. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eaban_%C3%96zdo%C4%9Fan Şaban Özdoğan (born 14 March 1990) is a Danish footballer of Turkish descent who currently plays for Holbæk B&I in the Danish 2nd Division East. He previously played for Danish Superliga club F.C. Copenhagen. This football player is from Denmark, so, he's Danish by nationality and he should be included in the demonym Danish/Dane, but how will be if the link for the demonym goes to the ethnic Danes?

The problem is just with the demonyms of the countries where there is a dominant ethnic groups, but there is no need to change this in other places, for example in some place when we talk about some ethnic Dane, of course the link will going to the Danes. Here is one example for that. There are no official statistics on ethnic groups, but according to 2018 figures from Statistics Denmark, 86.7% of the population was of Danish descent (the link here goes to the ethnic Danes, defined as having at least one parent who was born in Denmark and has Danish citizenship. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Moxy's suggestion makes more sese. Also, having one pparent who was born in Denmark and having Danish citizenship wouldn't guarantee thatsomeone is ethnically Danish. And you really need to learn to indent. --Khajidha (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean, the link Danes is just for the ethnic group Danes, and not for all citizens of Denmark such as the links Canadians, Americans, Argentines etc., but the demonym doesn't refers just to the ethnic Danes, because the link can't go to the Danes, but to the demographics of Denmark because there are enumerated all ethnic groups who live in Denmark. Sashko1999 (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999 I'm sorry but your posts reveal a major lack of understanding and lack of willingness to engage in discussion. I'm not going to continue this meaningless exchange of posts with you before you start showing some respect on wikipedia and your fellow editors. Argean (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Khajidha, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eaban_%C3%96zdo%C4%9Fan Şaban Özdoğan is a 100% ethnic Turk from Denmark, is he Dane by nationality or no? Sashko1999 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Here is an overview of the problem "This is one of those places where ethnic identity becomes a little tricky. Technically, the term Danish is a national, not ethnic term. Any citizen of Denmark is a Dane. The vast majority of people in Denmark are of Scandinavian ancestry.... but when asked ancestral origin will say Danish". So let's cover both these aspects in the Danes article.--Moxy (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Moxy, Danish/Dane is and national and ethnic term, so, it has a double meaning, I already said that, but the demonym refers from where is some person, and not of which ethnicity is he/she, because the link can't go to the ethnic group Danes. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Here clearly writes: This article is about Danes as a nation and ethnic group. Also writes: For information about residents or nationals of Denmark, see Demographics of Denmark, and the demonym is about the residents or nationals of Denmark, not about the ethnic group Danes. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk more about this one article at Talk:Denmark#‎The demonym refers to all citizens of one country reposted my post there. but be aware at this point the discussion of the link is pretty much mute and we're talking about expansion of the article.... and what direction it should take. PS going out for breakfast will be back shortly--Moxy (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999:Well done, you finally realized the problem that your suggestion creates. Danes as nationals (=citizens) of Denmark should be covered in its respective article that describes the Danes as a nation and an ethnic group. Including the residents of a country as described in the Demographics of Denmark is misleading, because they are not all Danes. To give you a simple example: I'm ethnically Greek (well I have partially Aromanian descent too) and my nationality/citizenship is Greek, but I'm a permanent resident of the UK. Does that make me British? Argean (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean, yes, that makes you British by nationality because you are a British national and you live in UK, so, If someone ask you from where are you, you will say from UK, and exactly that's the demonym, it describes from where is some person, and not of which ethnicity is he/she. Just to say that the British people are not an ethnic group, but that's the demonym for all the citizens of UK. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_people The British people, or the Britons, are the CITIZENS of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Overseas Territories, and the Crown dependencies. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999 Wow, that was almost hilarious. Please go to the British government today and tell them to give me a British passport, now that you upgraded me to a British national. Argean (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I'm really sorry to disappoint you but being a resident of a country doesn't make you a national or citizen of the country. Argean (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean, because you said that you are a permenent resident of the UK, I thought that you live longer time there and that you have a British passport, if you don't have, then of course that you are not British by nationality. Sashko1999 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sashko1999} I'm really sorry that you have such a big confusion among the terms "resident", "citizen" and "national" (and many more others). I'm a permanent resident of the country (it doesn't matter for how long), but I don't think that I will ever change my nationality. Still I'm included in the demographics of the United Kingdom. So please allow yourself some time to do some reading before starting to make claims on how you will improve wikipedia. Argean (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

But the demonym refers to the residents or nationals of one country, not to one ethnic group of that country, and for example in Greece the residents ot nationals are not just the ethnic Greeks, because the link can't go the the Greeks, i don't know how do you don't understand. Sashko1999 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Well Greece doesn't officially recognize ethnic minorities, but that's another discussion. Still a Greek can have various ethnic backgrounds , but most of them are also ethnically Greeks. All the residents of Greece are not Greeks though and that's why we have a separate article for demographics that includes all residents of Greece. But the demonym in the case of countries obviously refers to the people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country), so of course it should redirect to Greeks. It's so clear and simple, that sometimes I think that you are actually trolling us. Argean (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean, you will not change your nationality, haha, tell me, do you know what's nationality? Sashko1999 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Sashko1999 if this irony, I hope that I made clear the WP:PA rules the other day Argean (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Argean, you said a Greek can have various ethnic backgrounds, but most of them are also ethnically Greeks, that's completely true. Also, you said the demonym in the case of countries obviously refers to the people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country), that's also completely true. So, tell me now, how is it possible the link for the demonym Greek to go to the ethnic Greeks if not all people that come from Greece (as nationals of the country) are ethnic Greeks? Sashko1999 (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

If the Danes article does not adequately explain what Danes are today, that article needs to be fixed, not the link. Period. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

—DIYeditor, the article is good, Danes today are an ethnic group, so, the link for the demonym should be fixed.

https://books.google.mk/books?id=PY6S53UbOC8C&pg=PA81&dq=Ethnic+Danes&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8qaGs6DgAhUBtIMKHcgdDooQ6AEIZTAI#v=onepage&q=Ethnic%20Danes&f=false

https://books.google.mk/books?id=cKUnBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=Ethnic+Danes&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8qaGs6DgAhUBtIMKHcgdDooQ6AEIdzAL#v=onepage&q=Ethnic%20Danes&f=false

https://books.google.mk/books?id=y6JXAAAAYAAJ&q=Ethnic+Danes&dq=Ethnic+Danes&hl=bg&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjr8qaGs6DgAhUBtIMKHcgdDooQ6AEIcTAK

https://www.britannica.com/place/Denmark/People Denmark is almost entirely inhabited by ethnic Danes.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/ethnic-groups-living-in-denmark.html 9 out of 10 residents of Denmark identify as ethnic Danes... Sashko1999 (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe this should just be closed early, Sashko1999 is wasting our time. —DIYeditor (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering that 1) no one has agreed with Sashko's changes, 2) Sashko demonstrates distinct problems understanding English, and 3) there seems to be an agreement to block Sashko developing over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sashko1999, I think we can close this and move along. We can make the changes to the relevant pages (ie Danes) to clarify that while the root meaning is based on ethnicity, the modern meaning is mostly citizenship based. These changes seemed to have broad support amongst all editors other than Sashko. --Khajidha (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think that unlinking the demonym should at least be an available option. But that's not the case with the current setup of {{infobox country}}: that template will always first attempt to link to <demonym> people (if such a page exists). Changing that behaviour is techincally easy, but I guess there ought to be some agreement about that first. – Uanfala (talk) 15:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Request for closure

Would someone uninvolved please close this RFC, Sashko1999 is indefed and this is a waste of time. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Azerbaijan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Azerbaijan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Azerbaijan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion

Template_talk:Infobox_country#Metro_area_parameter. Interstellarity (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Mongolia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Mongolia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Mongolia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Kiribati for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Kiribati is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kiribati until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Zimbabwe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Zimbabwe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Zimbabwe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WPC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPC. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Help Bangladesh article

Hi guys, Please help in improving the Bangladesh country article, although the article is significantly developed, but not as compared to articles like India, Canada, Australia, Germany or Japan these are all FA status articles. Its my humble appeal to you please help nominate Bangladesh article as Good or Featured article. Thank You--2405:201:8803:5F9D:E994:F724:9292:CF71 (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Armenia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Armenia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Armenia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Gabon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Gabon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Gabon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)