Talk:List of sovereign states

Nagorno Karabakh, Eastern Libya and Somaliland

NK, SO, Abkhazia and Transnistria are full members of CIS-2, and recognize each other, Somaliland isn't recognized by any state and possibly they could be excluded from the list or transferred to the new 4th section of unrecognized states, Transitional National Council fits the definitions of state and has limited internationall recognition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.88.127 (talk) 05:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The names of the items in the list are given in English, as well as in the official, national, major minority, and historically important languages of the state

In lots of countries many important languages aren't included, for example russian is historically important and/or major minority and/or spoken by majority language in all former soviet states, norway, israel and mongolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.250.88.127 (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why the English name of a country needs to be included twice in some countries with English as a official or important language. The English names are already shown in bold besides the flag. Grioghair (talk) 14:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because the presence of an English name alone as the overall reference does not imply that it has any official or important status in a country. --Taivo (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC proposal

I reverted the implementation of a two category proposal coming out of the recent RfC [1]. I did not do it because of personal disagreement but rather because I believe the proposal ought to take into account the opinion of those users previously involved in the dispute resolution process. Besides, the RfC is not yet closed. So feel free to comment on the proposal presented in the diff. I would strongly suggest not changing significantly the current version while the RfC is still open. Ladril (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The admin that you asked to stop intervene the RfC will redact comments from anyone involved. I'll close the RfC at the end of the month, and then we can have a follow-up discussion and discuss the ideas. Nightw 16:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I did what? I did not ask for any RfC to be stopped. Somebody must have dreamed that. Ladril (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Ladril, I've confused you with User:Danlaycock. Nightw 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not true either. What Danlaycock did express was the opinion that the RfC should not be used to circumvent the consensus-building process. Given some previous developments I witnessed, I share his concern. You and I seem to be in the same frequency about this matter, however, so I'll leave it there. Ladril (talk) 19:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, you're still dreaming Night because I never asked for the RFC to be stopped either. I had concerns about the situation, and requested input from Sarek on how to proceed. Once Sarek removed the most glaringly partisan portions of your RfC filing, and the edit warring against consensus by you and Alinor stopped, I've happily let the RfC play out to get some outside opinions on the situation. TDL (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing I am going to say about the version by Noleander is that the second section should not be titled "Entities" but "States". Ladril (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise we run into problems trying to classify Palestine. TDL (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Reducing num sort categories from 3 to 2

In accordance with the RfC discussion at Talk:List_of_sovereign_states/Discussion_of_criteria, I've reduced the number of sort categories from 3 down to 2. That is, the two small categories at the bottom ("Observer/Specialized" and "No UN affiliation") are now a single sort category. No other changes were made. I think that editors should focus on filling in good detail in the "Further information" and "Dispute" columns, rather than increasing the number of sort categories. Breaking the table into multiple sort categories is bad for the readers ... because when they search for something, they have to go through multiple alphabetical groups. For example, a reader searching for, say Vatican City, may scroll down to Zambia, and - no seeing Vatican City, conclude it is not within this article (but it is: just further down). If there is a dispute about whether a given entity is a "sovereign state" or not, that dispute can be explained with color-coding and with text in the Dispute/Further information columns. Sorting is a confusing way to convey details about sovereignty disputes to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

See 'RfC proposal' above for an explanation of the revert. Ladril (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Waiting longer is always a good thing to do. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion of this will be needed following the close of the RfC that some may not participate in. Outback the koala (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Outback. --Taivo (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to put Reed tablemount bank as a sovereign of the Philippines

To whom it may concern, I'm requesting to the author or any member whose righteous to edit this article to include Reed/tablemount bank in the "Further information on status and recognition of sovereignty column" as part of the claimed sovereign of the Philippines and is occupied entirely by the Philippines and under its territory. Thanks Manager0916 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Regardless who occupies it, it cannot be the subject of a soveriegnty claim (in its own right) through its occupation since it has no landmass above water. See the law of the sea convention for more details on the details of soveriegnty and water features.XavierGreen (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Niue discussed as a state here

[2] (click on expand under "John Quigley"). Ladril (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent total number of states

The article's second line states that "The list contains 195 entries" Both methods however sum up to a total of 203 instead of 195 entries (192 + 2 + 9 // 190 + 13) --> Please update the number of 195 to 203 so it reflect the current amount of entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.196.7.170 (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Southern Sudan

Southern Sudan needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrysUniverse (talk • contribs) 04:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's going to be added after a reliable source documenting its independence becomes available (a news report should suffice). Ladril (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a news report corroborating such an event http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-07/08/c_13974315.htm - it appears Tommorrow July 9th with be the date of independence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.215.64 (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

While we're here, am I right in thinking it will be in the same category as the Vatican (for now), with it's name in English and Arabic and a note something like "In a dispute with Sudan over Abyei"? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not by the current sorting, I think, until they join either the UN or some UN Specialised Agency. I'd say this is near-certain within the next few weeks, but better not to jump the gun. Note that Sudan has pre-announced recognition (so there will be no dispute as to its sovereignty) and that according to that article, celebrations begin at 2100 UTC on 8 July (midnight local time, or about an hour and a half from now). I don't know at what exact moment we should be counting from, but that seems a good a one as any. Pfainuk talk 19:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, according to BBC the UN application goes through on the 13th, with membership apparently planned for the 14th. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Independence will be official from July 9, according to sources. I would still suggest waiting for some confirmation from reliable sources that same day. Ladril (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that the name planned is to be "South Sudan" rather than "Southern". Does anyone have refs to support this? Outback the koala (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

To confirm: [3][4][5]. Al-Jazeera say that South Sudan have "declared independence", whereas the ABC/AP and BBC just say that they have become independent. All use "South Sudan"; the ABC/AP refer to the "Republic of South Sudan". To my mind we are now fully sourced and ready to go. Pfainuk talk 21:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added it, including a sourced bit to Al-Jazeera that I suggest be removed in a few days once this is no longer likely to be challenged. I haven't added the Arabic only because I don't know it and it isn't mentioned at South Sudan (yet). Pfainuk talk 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the addition. Ladril (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I've seen some media refer to the Republic of Sudan as North Sudan. Anyone have any idea if they've officially changed their name? Obviously it's too soon to know what the WP:COMMONNAME will become, but it might be a situation like the Koreas where the common name's geographic identifier (North/South) isn't part of the official name. In that scenario we sort them both under K. When the geographic qualifier is part of the official name (ie South Ossetia) we sort under S. TDL (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's something the current setup has achieved: months of edit wars about whether South Sudan is an "internationally recognized state" have been preempted. Ladril (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for certain, but the current location of our article Sudan would appear to suggest not. You might see a parallel in the US states of Virginia and West Virginia. I think North Sudan is just a colloquialism coined to more clearly contrast from South Sudan - obviously this is fundamentally different from North/South Korea (for example) in that the two sides recognise one another. Pfainuk talk 22:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Pfainuk is right. The South is officially called South Sudan, much like South Ossesita and unlike South Korea (Korea). I doubt Sudan will change its name, "North Sudan" is probably a convenient way to disambiguate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you're correct that it's just a colloquialism. But my point with the comparison to the Koreas was that even if the name hasn't officially changed we might want to add some qualifier to their entry to disambiguate it. For the Koreas we use the colloquial names (Korea, North and Korea, North) and for the Congos we use the official names (Congo, Democratic Republic of the and Congo, Republic of the). So the options would be:

Sudan, North or Sudan, Republic of

Perhaps it's easiest to wait and see what happens to the Sudan article and follow their lead on the common name. TDL (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look necessary to me. You don't use a qualifier to distinguish Baja California and Baja California Sur, or the US states of Virginia and West Virginia. I suppose the encyclopedia follows common usage. Ladril (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm seeing the term "North Sudan" pop up a lot in major news organizations. A quick google news search shows Reuters [6], The Globe and Mail [7], The Telegraph [8], Al Jazeera [9], NPR [10], the AP (via ABC) [11], Jerusalem Post [12], and The Guardian [13] all using the term. This is worth keeping an eye on. Orange Tuesday (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

On the issue of recognition, XavierGreen has noted on other pages that there are only two recognitions. Can anyone enlighten on this? There are many statements I can find from countries saying they will recognise (pre-9th), but few saying they have. Montenegro situation? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Given as north Sudan recognises, I'd say it sounds like a Montenegro situation (i.e. there are a lot of places that have yet to sort out the paperwork). There's some question on Eritrea, I think, since they are on record as opposing independence, though I'm not sure to what extent this is being carried through to active refusal to recognise now that independence has occurred. The President of Eritrea is in Juba today, if that means anything. Pfainuk talk 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

[14] This article indicates that UN membership will likely come on 14 July. We should be ready to move the entry to the first section at that point. (Not that it'll take too much work) Orange Tuesday (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Though I suggest we wait for the UN Press release. Pfainuk talk 16:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

List of countries

Earlier today SilkTork converted List of countries from a redirect to this page into a dab page. I think this is a mistake as we already have Lists of countries and territories which acts as a dab page to cover this and List_of_sovereign_states is the primary meaning for List of countries. Therefore I have reverted the edit to the last one by Chipmunkdavis (6 September 2010) which redirected List of countries to this page. This has been the consensus for the last few years and I think that it should be discussed here and a new consensus reached before the redirect is changed into another dab page. -- PBS (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. There are several lists of countries with organisations counting countries differently. When someone like myself is putting in a search for "lists of countries" it is likely (in my case most certainly) we are looking for the lists of those organisations, such as United Nations, FIFA, IANA. The sovereign states list looks very attractive, though it is just one list out of the many - so directing people here is perhaps not as helpful as directing people to the fuller range. The Wikipedia list doesn't appear to be an official list. It has its own criteria for inclusion. Interesting material, but as it was not the list I was looking for, it seemed inappropriate to redirect List of countries to List of sovereign states. I changed the redirect, and then noted that this had been done in the past - several times. The current redirect is unstable as a number of people find it unsatisfactory that when putting in a search for a list of countries we are offered a Wikipedia version, rather than the fuller range of official and unofficial lists. A dab page appears the most helpful in the circumstances, especially as a country is not a Sovereign state. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 22:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The common meaning of "country" in English is a sovereign state, so the redirect here is perfectly appropriate and in keeping with WP:COMMONNAME. In English, a list of countries is, indeed, the list of sovereign states. Only the Scots have a problem with this since they want to call Scotland a "country". But they are a minority of English speakers. I agree with Philip Baird Shearer on this. --Taivo (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've put List of countries up for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of WP:COMMONNAME, the simple fact is that there are countries which are not sovereign states. This has been debated many times and the sources are very clear. If we have a list of countries then it will need to include those countries which are not sovereign states, the current redirect avoids that problem. Sorry SilkTork but I can't see the logic in your argument. At one point you say that countries are sovereign states, but then when a search on list of countries takes you to the list of sovereign states you say it was not the list you were looking for. --Snowded ^TALK 14:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a POV issue amongst a small number of editors who stridently push a narrow and unweilding view that such-and-such a place (usually located on an archipelago off the north-west coast of France) is a "country" and must not be called anything less ... otherwise THE WORLD WILL END!!!

However, in this case, I find myself in sympathy with them. Country is ambigious - a reason why it is best avoided on articles to do with such-and-such a place in favour of more clearer terms (contrary to their POV pushing). What makes a "country" is not well defined, and while the common use in English is for country to mean sovereign state, there are other places which are called "country".

For that reason, I would suggest to two-pronged approach. A move to one article and a change to the redirect on List of countries:

1. Move Lists of countries and territories → Lists of sovereign states and territories
2. Change the redirect on List of countries to point to Lists of sovereign states and territories

That way, List of countries would rightly point to an ambigious "list of lists", which includes a link to List of sovereign states. --RA (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)