Talk:Dependent territory

Australian Coral Sea Islands

You cannot say this territory is completely uninhabited, since Willis Island has indeed a small population MaXiMiLiAnO 18:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs)

That is correct, thus it'll get fixed now. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this. 4 permanent scientists? I understand the technicalities of it all, but I'm not so sure that 4 scientists makes it inhabited. Is antarctica inhabited? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Officially it's uninhabited [1]. Night w2 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Well "a manned weather station has been in operation on Willis Island since 1921" AND it is under the same governmental department that oversees other inhabited islands. So as long as even just one small island has a permanent group (like on Pitcairn Island), then I'd say yes.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:08, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an obvious difference between Pitcairn's population and 4 (3?) scientists who probably won't spend a third of their lives on this weather station. And the government officially designates and describes it as an "uninhabited territory". It's fine to further describe its "population" in its article, but here, where we categorise the entries, it looks ridiculous in the inhabited section. We should categorise according to official status. Otherwise, there are about half-a-dozen permanently manned stations in the Antarctic territory, and the French TAAF and U.S. Midway Atoll and Wake Island would also qualify as "inhabited", as would the U.S.-claimed Seranilla Bank, which is manned by Colombians. Night w2 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Fine then, if it has been designated as such, so be it. Although they should have some note or comment that some of those places do have a permanent presence on them. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Night w2 (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

List or not?

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

The result of the move request was: withdrawn. Rennell435 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Dependent territory → List of dependent territories – Methinks this be a list. Though we don't seem to have a regular article on what a dependent territory is, so the curent title might be the best title. This is just an exercise to gather other opinions. An option might be to split off the list on its own, leaving this article describing the generic term. Rennell435 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the title needs "List of" for the article to be a list. The problem with describing the generic term is that, well, there's no real description for what it means anymore. Half the entities we have listed do not fit the definition we have in the lead. The whole article needs rewriting. I doubt however that it will at any point be long enough that the list needs to be split off. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, the title probably doesn't need to have the word "list" in it for it to be a list. I suppose I'll withdraw this request, at least until the article expands a little more. Rennell435 (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment shouldn't the list be split off into a separate article? 65.94.47.217 (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

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

RFC on Cook Islands and Niue

RFC opened on their status here: [[2]]. Editors are invited to participate. Ladril (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

China et al

In regards to the recent edit war, I agree with Eofreedom. Our current inclusion is meaningless. If we were to include only the official dependent territories, we'd just have BOTs, US territories, and Tokelau+Ross (with possible Australian inclusions). If we have the supposed integral Greenland, why not Hong Kong and Macau? Inclusiveness with explanation is probably the best option. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Inclusiveness with an explanation is a can of worms for a dozen other claims. HK/MO are coterminous territory, integral and traditional parts of China that became European colonies. Now they are Chinese again. They have limited and time dependent self-government as they re-integrate politically and socially from the colonial status. They aren't dependent territories. I don't know why HK POV pushers are so determined to use this status but it was well defined why they were excluded before the edit war. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The definition of dependent territories is very grey. Explanations would clarify for readers. HK/MO are on the CIAs dependent territory list. The alternative is removing the Danish French and Dutch territories, as they are all integral (and probably far more integrated than HK or MO). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it. The Danish, French, and Dutch territories aren't similar. None of them are coterminous territory, and they are specifically defined as separate from the European power. We do list and link HK/MO (with other territories) on a different article. Readers aren't left lacking for an explanation. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

All are legally full parts of their respective countries. The Danish territories are represented in the Danish parliament, the French territories in the French parliament. The Dutch territories are equally part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with the European part, with all constitutions falling under the oversight of the Kingdoms charter. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Hong Kong and Macau are dependent territories they seem more separate than the others here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think only those territories should be listed that are officially considered as dependent: Australia, NZ, USA, UK and Norway territories. All other cases should be listed with an explanation why they are NOT on the list. Now the list is based on a totally arbitrary point of view. --maxval (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Dependent territories map

The dependent territories map used on this article is in many ways outdated, vague, and inaccurate, and is frequently contradicted in the article itself. A better map should either be found or this one should be edited. Liam987(talk)_{contributions} 12:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)