Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations

Template:Multidel

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:16, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Naming

What would be the correct way to name the page Bosnia and Herzegovina–Croatia relations? (considering that the adjective "Bosnia–Herzegovina" causes ambiguity and "Bosnian" is mostly understood to refer only to the language) —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There used to be a guideline for naming the bilateral relations articles, but it was removed here. I suggest some sort of a naming convention is restored, because what we have now is chaos. We have adjective format in alphabetical and non-alphabetical order; country name format in alphabetical and non-alphabetical order; country name format with unspaced en dash, spaced en dash, hyphen, em dash etc.

I suggest the following format: all bilateral relations pages are named in country name format with en dashes. The en dashes are unspaced unless one or both countries have a space in their name, in which case the en dash is spaced (see WP:ENDASH). The country names use the short name of the country except when it's ambiguous (People's Republic of China, Republic of Congo). The country names are in alphabetical order. So we would have

• Cambodia–Greece relations instead of Cambodian-Greek relations (country name format)
• France – United Kingdom relations instead of France–United Kingdom relations (spaced en dash when one of the country names contains a space)
• Brazil–Malaysia relations instead of Malaysia-Brazil relations (en dash, alphabetical order)

This would be correct according to the en dash guideline. Besides, most of the articles are already in country name format.

So to answer your question, the correct name for the article would be Bosnia and Herzegovina – Croatia relations. Just my suggestion. Jafeluv (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am new here, but think there should be some guideline. I note there has been recent edit warring over Anglo-, Sino-, Franco- etc. Should htat not be the subject of a discussuion here? Personally, I would support Anglo-French relations. There would be a logic in placing the shorter name first. I would support the use of adjectives, rather than nouns used as adjectives for countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(I moved your comment to the bottom, it was in the middle of mine) The problem with the adjective forms is that it's not always clear what is being referred to. "Argentine-Greek relations" might be unambiguous, but "Anglo-Greek relations" is not. According to wiktionary, Anglo- means "England, English" or "Anglo-Saxon". It's not the same thing as "United Kingdom". Sino- has the same problem, not making explicitly clear if we're talking about People's Republic of China, Republic of China, Empire of China or what. And what about the countries that don't have a commonly used adjective form (say, Republic of the Congo and Democratic Republic of the Congo)? I think putting the unambiguous country name in the article title is the best solution. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer the adjective form because that is what makes sense grammatically. "Greece relations"? It needs to be "Greek relations" and the addition of another country does not change this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Peer review of Ambassador of Russia to Austria

I have listed Ambassador of Russia to Austria for peer review, as I would like to take this to featured list nomination soon, but am looking for outside input on any improvements, etc which may be made to the article/list in order to improve it to give it greater chance of being passed. Please be kind, as this is my first time doing this, and it can be PR'ed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Ambassador of Russia to Austria/archive1. Welcome any input anyone may have. Cheers, --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C.

Just a heads up - I've tagged the stub with your project. APK is ready for the tourists to leave 13:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

List of United Nations peacekeeping missions

I have nominated List of United Nations peacekeeping missions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A consensus for x-country & y-country relations articles? (Wikipedia wide)?

There's a bandwagon deleting various country relations articles based on if that nominator knows of ties or not. Is there any current movements towards establishing what should be the basic criteria of country vs. country relations articles???? For example: Some countries may not have relations as robust as others but should that preclude completely them from outlining what their relations is with that other country?

I've seen two different sets of criteria used to nominate articles and I think an established criteria set should be formulated. Some things I thought of and certainly could be considered. Silly things too like (Canada–Haiti relations) I mean hello Canada is working on a mission in Haiti. Barbados–Nigeria relations (heck most Barbadians today are decedents of Nigeria and Ghana.

• Do the countries have direct missions to each-other's countries? If not- as a secondary option do they (at least) have a mission between one another via a third-party country? E.g. Some countries have mission in Washington D.C. which for example might also cover other nations. As a working example... Belize has a mission to Washington D.C., the D.C. mission also acts as a mission to Canada even though Belize does not have a resident mission to Canada to the best of my knowledge.

• Does the article notate a level of trade between both countries?
• Did the leaders between both nations open any significant form of high level negotiations between both nations? or visit each-others countries?
• Are the governments between the countries creating any joint-venture projects in the article?
• Do both nations have- or provide any cooperation to one another? i.e. a donor country relationship? E.g. Soviet Union for Cuba. Or Venezuela to Cuba etc.
• Is the article entry well referenced to back-up all claims?
• Did the countries go to war?
• Should government references be permitted? Or should it have more independent-journalist references than it does government ones? I've heard both ways. In one instance I've heard "no that article has too much government references" and then another time I heard "no that article has too much news references without any government references..." This should be clearly defined. E.g. lots of media claim that a "North American Union" is coming however the Government references in that article are being used to say it is just theory. Other times such as in some of the country x vs. country y articles I'm seeing that too many government sources are listed and Wikipedia can't go by what two governments say.
• Also how weighted should international fora be as it pertains to the creation of a "country vs. country relations" article. For example: I don't think it would be enough just to have an article that only says. "These two nations are members of: the UN, Commonwealth, La Francophonie, OAS, and "Andean Pact" and have that be the only thing in the article. There should be more substance I think in that example but how much. Should there be a minimum criteria of "stub-iness" basically before it isn't even worth having an article for?
• Are the nations members of a trade bloc? e.g. ASEAN, CARICOM, NAFTA, African Union, European Union. etc.?
• Should there be an amnesty on sizable stub articles between two members of the same trade bloc. E.g. Say Germany-France (since that is the EU.) or Colombia-Ecuador (since that is Mercosur) or say Pakistan-Singapore etc. since that is ASEAN? To my mind it is obvious that since they are part of the same bloc their trade would only stand to grow and that might make it more notable. Perhaps if an article isn't significant enough for having a full article and it is between two members of the same trade bloc should it just be reduced to the parent "Foreign relations of X" article instead. e.g. Greece and Romania for example if it wasn't a large article reduce it to either a header under Foreign relations of Romania or Foreign relations of Greece instead(as long as it is referenced).
• Another criteria that I thought of for consideration. Alternately if you have have two places between the same block if the article is too "stuby" would it better to place it in country x and (bloc name). For example if you have an article between two nations of the EU. Say one is Belgium. If it is not worthy of having a full article what about if that article was reduced to say Belgium and the European Union.
• A specific instance of this that I can think of all CARICOM nations have various levels of trade between one another but not all need full articles. E.g. there's an article Barbados-Jamaica relations. I was thinking it might make more sense to reduce that to the Barbados and CARICOM article instead since ties with Jamaica aren't really huge but are there since Barbados and Jamaica make up two of the four countries of CARICOM designated as "Most developed nation" status and as such means they have certain responsibilities to the other "less developed nations" of CARICOM interms on contributions and the like.
• Or are there any transient nationals living between both nations?

CaribDigita (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to (and not formally signed up for) this project. However, I have been working on articles on the diplomatic relations of UK 1650-1850, mainly in terms of identifying heads of missions from UK. It seems to me that there should be an article, (at least) if (1) there are (or have been) diplomatic relations (2) there has been a war. That fact that we only have a stub should be no reason for deletion, as long as the possibility of expansion exists. It is true that small countries will often have one ambassador covering a whole region (eg NW Europe); the example of the Belize Mission in Washington also covering Canada is cognate. In these cases, perhaps the article on Belize-Canada should be kept as a stub, with a link to the Belize-US article. I think that small numbers of expatriates would not be sufficient to warrant an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind me, I'll just but in! It might be an idea to merge them into one article- the existing one for the USA would probably be best, with a note explaining they share an ambassador. That should reduce the likelihood of deletion and solve notability problems. HJMitchell You rang? 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just an update.... If you have an interest see here.

• Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations

or

• Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force

CaribDigita (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree we need a guideline for these articles, unless anyone else if currently doing this I'll probably prepare something over the weekend, based on the established format for official guidelines. I'll take into account the above and the other proposals on this page, and then maybe post it on a sub page in this project so everyone has a chance to agree or amend it as they see fit before we introduce it to the community? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

French diplomatic articles

for the record, as an Englishman, relations between France and the USA are not something that overly concerns me. However, as a wikipedian, the quality of these articles is. I came across Consulate General of France in Atlanta through the new pages patrol, and have lent it the benefit of my copy editing and referencing expertise, then found Embassy of France in Washington, D.C. while trying to de-orphan the former, the latter being in an even worse state. I'm currently working on that one, though I wondered if someone here would be interested in taking a look at some of the related articles- many seem to be missing- London, for example- and lots are merely stubs, though for two of the most powerful countries on Earth, I would say these articles are of very high importance and need to be expanded, especially since the information is out there. Anybody who can dig me up a few sources besides the official websites, it would be greatly appreciated! A reply or talkback on my own talk page and I'd be much obliged! HJMitchell You rang? 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC) NB: I've left a similar note on the talk page of WP:WikiProject France

Naming conventions for bilateral articles.

Proposal #1

All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:

• The adjective forms of the countries are to be used. (Filipino-American relations, not Philippines-United States relations)
  • There are special adjectives that are to be used. Exceptions may be permitted if the name doesn't phonetically sound correct.
    • Anglo- for United Kingdom, Kingdom of Great Britain, or England (depending on the time period the article is concerned with)
    • Sino- for People's Republic of China
    • Indo- for India
    • Franco- for France
    • Russo- for Russia
• The adjective with the fewer syllables goes first. (Sino-American relations, not American-Sino relations).
  • If both adjectives have the same number of syllables, then they are placed in alphabetical order according to the short official names as listed in List of countries.

Proposal #2

All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to have an organization within all such articles:

• The name of the country should be used in order to prevent possible confusion. (Examples: Nigerian vs. Nigerien, Greco vs. Greek, etc.)
• The countries should be placed in alphabetical order according to the short official names of the countries.
• An endash should be used between the two article names, according to WP:ENDASH.

Discussion

For a while now, bilateral articles have been using the naming conventions found in proposal #2. As such, I removed the guideline from the WikiProject page because I felt it no longer represented consensus. Since then, two editors have decided to readd the "guideline" so I broke it up into two proposals and have taken it here. People who post here please comment on the possible negative and positives of both proposals, comment on which one you support, and add any other suggestions you have for moving forward with these conventions. Tavix |  Talk  00:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Until recently, most if not all articles used "proposal 1" and Turkish Flame has been moving batches every so often for the past few months regardless of the numerous warnings he received (not from me). The point is that we have to use "proposal 1" because "proposal 2" is grammatically incorrect. "Greece relations"? It has to be Greek relations and the addition of another country name does not change this rule of our language. Also there have been moves such as seen here where the guideline has been upheld through consensus. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, I would prefer the country name format. Some of the adjective forms suggested (and currently used) are ambiguous and/or plain incorrect when referring to a country. For a person in Scotland it would be correct to refer to the relations between his or her country and, say, Ireland, as "Ireland – United Kingdom relations" (since Scotland is a part of the UK). However, "Anglo-Irish relations" would be incorrect, since (as I said before), Anglo- means something related to England, the English, or the English language. Also, both the Republic of the Congo and the Democratic Republic of the Congo use the demonym "Congolese". Using the adjective forms would make "Congolese-American relations" (yes, we have both articles) ambiguous and we would need some way to disambiguate the two articles. To Grk1011's point that the country name format is grammatically incorrect: Yes, "Greece relations" would be incorrect, and we should use "Greek relations". However, I don't see how "Greece–Turkey relations" is any less correct than "Dublin–Belfast route", "New York – Sydney flight", "New Zealand – South Africa grand final", or the other examples at WP:ENDASH. Jafeluv (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I strongly support the "Proposal 2". --Turkish Flame ^☎ 03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well we cannot just disregard the rules of our language because someone might not know the adjective form of the country. If you really want to use the noun, I would support "Relations of Greece and Iceland". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• You know, I really like that proposal and I feel it would satisfy both parties concerns. Does anyone else have anything against that proposal? Tavix |  Talk  14:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Can I suggest "Foreign" in front of it or would that make it too long for some? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever may come of this discussion, I can definitely say that I oppose the proposal of renaming all the articles to archaic titles (Anglo-, Sino-, Indo-, Franco-, Russo-, etc.) This isn't the 19th Century. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

---

Compromise Proposal

All articles regarding the bilateral relations between two countries should follow this format in order to create a consistent naming scheme on Wikipedia:

• Title of page: Relations of country A and country B
• The countries should be placed in alphabetical order according to their short official names as listed in List of sovereign states.

---

Ok, so here is the official compromise proposal, so we just need to decide if we would like to put it into effect. As I said above, I would like to see "Foreign" added before the title to read "Foreign relations of country A and country B, but if everyone would rather not have that, I can get over it. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I support the compromise proposal. Neither of the others works for me: Proposal 1 because of the reasons given by others above; proposal 2 because it becomes ugly when the short name of a state consists of more than one word. (Even more so when people ignore the special clause about spacing in this case.) I would prefer it without "foreign" for brevity, but could live with it. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I just saw that we have articles "Foreign relations of country", so maybe "foreign" would be best for consistency? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• I support the proposal. The word foreign means "from a different country", so by definition the relations between country A and country B would be foreign relations. Therefore I don't think the word "foreign" is necessary in the title. It is, of course, necessary in "Foreign relations of country". One question, though: if consensus is reached on this proposal, it's going to mean that a lot of articles will have to be moved. Who's going to do it? Is there a bot for mass moves like this? Jafeluv (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Vigrously Oppose Actually, "Country A"-"Country B" relations works just fine, and I'd rather have that than moving all these over to "Relations of _____"; Besides being unnecessary, there's a reason to prefer the existing method, which is that you type in Australia, you get Australia. Under the proposal, we'd have hundreds of articles that all begin with "R", making it a pain to slog through in the searchbox. If it ain't broke, don't break it. Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's already broken because Country-Country relations is not proper English as I said above. Also, the search box point you bring up is only half right because there are two countries involved, Australia would not always be first like in the case of say Armenia-Australia relations. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"Not proper English"? Oh man, I recognize you now. You're the guy who was lobbying to exhume terms like Anglo- and Indo- and Franco-. It's no surprise that your compromise is to propose a new solution, also of your own making. Look, the main thing to aim for in an article title is a likely search term, not to match one person's opinion about what's "proper". Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Australia–Armenia relations would of course exist and redirect to Armenia–Australia relations. So you find the article from the search box either way. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And they can both redirect to the proper wording. I don't really think we have the option to to it country-country relations simply because it is not English. That's like purposely spelling a word wrong because it's easier to spell that way. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We're not discussing "country country relations". We're discussing "country–country relations". I'm not a native speaker (I had to look up "exhume"), but I don't see anything wrong with the use of an en dash here. Could you explain me why you find "country–country relations" incorrect English and "Dublin–Belfast route", "New York – Sydney flight" and "New Zealand – South Africa grand final" (examples listed as WP:ENDASH) correct? Or are you saying that those are incorrect as well? Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The way it works with the dash, which i just didnt feel like adding to my response originally because I thought you could assume it was there, is that say you have Greece-Armenia relations, by taking out one country you have "Armenia relations" which does not work because Armenia is not an adjective, which was the reason why the guideline was to use the adjective form in the first place. All of the example from the endash make sense if you remove one of the terms, (except for the last one). Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Using the names of the countries rather than adjectives is preferable, thus I support this proposal. -- User:Docu
  • I strongly oppose the Noun-Noun compound scheme. I totally agree with Grk1011: For most country names, it is just plain not English. No native English speaker in natural discourse ever uses a phrase like that. I checked in actual corpora of natural English at some point and confirmed my impression: for many countries it's just not part of the language. I don't care whether we use the Latinate compounds (Franco-, Greco- etc) or the simple adjectives (French-, Greek-), and I honestly can't say what the most natural phrasing for some of the more complex names would be, but one thing I'm absolutely certain: a thing like France–Germany relations is totally unacceptable. I would strongly recommend that we should in general resist the urge to enforce a totally uniform naming scheme across all the simple and the difficult cases. It's just a fact of the English language that not all country names are grammatically of the same class. They must be treated differently, because they are simply different types of words. What works with one may not work with the other. Naturalness and proper idiomatic English in each individual case is much more important than uniformity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Please re-read the proposal. You might want to add your note to the previous section. -- User:Docu

Proposal #4

• Leave the titles the way they are, using alphabetical order to determine which nation to mention in the title first, and separating the names of the two nations with a hyphen.

under the format "NationA-NationB relations". Please state whether you support or oppose the idea of not changing the titles. Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support

• Mandsford (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• First of all, this is the same as proposal two which most people were against in the section above. It is something new; the current guideline for over a year has been to use the adjective form, so there is no "leaving the titles the way they are", many will have to be moved. Also, I can't emphasize enough how its not proper English to use a noun as an adjective. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• The "not proper English" argument makes no sense. Just because Grk1011 can't analyse "Canada–Greece relations" grammatically (disclosure: I can't either, but I am not trying very hard) doesn't mean it's improper English. [1] Nevertheless it's not particularly good style, and it looks bad when mixed with "Canada – United States relations" (per MOS). Also in practice a lot of people get it wrong all the time: "Canada–United States relations". --Hans Adler (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• How is India–Russia relations grammatically incorrect English? Are you telling me that these have it wrong? Including the Indian Embassy in Moscow, various media outlets, a Japanese university with a Slavic studies program, President of India, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, all of these authors, and all of these scholars? I can say that I moved all of the Russian articles to their current naming format. The Russian category was the neatest categories after I did the moves, and almost all others have followed. The reason I did these moves is that articles are for readers, and should be disambiguous as possible, and although I don't mind things being referred to as "Russo-", as mentioned above, this is so archaic (19th century) and tends to portray a certain importance over one side of the relationship. Additionally, there is ambiguity with the Anglo-, Russo-, etc; Anglo-Indian relations--is this talking about India-United Kingdom relations, or Anglo-Indian relations? The same with Irish-American relations. etc, etc. To use this archaic naming structure, also begs the question, would one limit it to Anglo-, Franco-, Indo-, Russo-, Sino-? And why not Germano- (Germany), Irano- (Iranian), Australo- (Australian), Greco- (Greece), Italo- (Italy). Who is the judge, jury and executioner on what sounds gramatically correct? And would it be Franco-Italian relations or Italo-French relations? India–Russia relations is grammatically correct English, and given the entire category, it is easy to find articles. Relations of India and Russia is incorrect given the content, as one would expect to see an article there of the relations of India and the relations of Russia. It would need to be Relations between India and Russia; too many keystrokes when India–Russia relations is grammatically correct and has less keystrokes (and obvious redirects are in place). Hence, I am in favour of current naming structures as in Category:Bilateral relations of Russia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So that would make you a support vote no? If you read carefully, they will be arranged alphabetically. It is incorrect English because you can't have "Russia relations" noun noun doesn't work. It would have to be Russian relations. Adding another country and dash preceding this does not change it. Also, with what authority are you renaming these articles? The naming guideline on the project page clearly states to use the adjective form. I personally would like proposal one, but not Anglo- etc. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are some example of "proposal 4" used in other ways: I am a Greece-United States person. My parents drive Japan cars. I've been to many Greece parades in Boston. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

India–Russia relations obviously does work, because it's used by government, media and scholars. Are you right? And they are all wrong? Or how about Australia–Russia relations, is the University of Melbourne not teaching their students correct English? Or perhaps NATO-Russia relations should be moved, and NATO and Russia advised that they are using incorrect English. But what to move it to? NATO-Russian relations? That doesn't work, how about NATOlese-Russian relations? OK that's being facetious. But we best advise the Japanse MFA that they are incorrect, as Japan-Russia relations just is not correct. Best advise Reuters whilst we are it. And then we can move on to the Chinese - both the Chinese Foreign Minister and Xinhua are wrong, as is an organisation funded by George Soros. And I guess that Forbes should go back to school - they might be good at money matters, not on grammar. As to whose authority, you fail to see that these are only guidelines, and WP:IAR trumps any guideline that does not seem to have ever been written as a result of any consensus, and as one can clearly see there is no consensus now, and if there was earlier, consensus can change. Discussion needs to reach a wider audience than this wikiproject, because there is really no consensus for anything, and I can say now that any Russian article moves would be contested at this stage. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit surprised to see "India-Russia relations" is such widespread use, but then again, that only confirms my impression that these things are subject to heavily idiosyncratic stylistic preferences in English, and that all country names simply can't be treated according to the same scheme. So people out there are using "India-Russia", but still, nobody uses "France-Germany" (if you google for it, "French-German" beats "France-Germany" by a huge factor, and of the remaining noun-noun instances most are either from non-native speakers, or not part of natural syntactic text (i.e. not embedded in actual sentences). Similar for "Russia-Poland" and other combinations. For most of the grammatically simple country names, the adjectival phrasing beats the nominal one in idiomaticity by such a huge margin as to make the latter virtually non-existent; and hence: ungrammatical. (Yes, anything that isn't naturally used by native speakers is, by definition, ungrammatical.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Pakistan relations

This article has been nominated for deletion- see WP:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Pakistan relations. I've tagged it for rescue and I wonder if anybody here has the expertise to help it out. HJMitchell You rang? 10:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletionists at it again.

As you guys doubtless know there's been concerted efforts recently to delete as many of the bilateral relations articles as possible. There's been considerable support for these entires at the ADF pages but some editors have taken to trying to get articles removed through the back door.

So if you have a few minutes for helping to save existing articles its worth keeping an eye on this bot generated page that lists the pages currently proded for deletion, as well as the main ADF page . Saving a prodded article is much easier than a ADF debate as you just have to remove the template from the top of the article and as a courtesy put a {{Oldprodfull}} tag on the articles talk page, and a {{Deprod}} tag on the prodders talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Please mind WP:CIV - raising the "deletionist!" specter and making inflated claims about "concerted efforts to delete as many of the bilateral relations articles as possible" is a gross exaggeration. Seeking to remove random and patent trivia from an encyclopedia, and to do so in streamlined fashion where a debate would have precisely the same outcome, is hardly the alarming scenario you paint. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If anything I've underplayed the passion some of you guys have for purging these entries Biratel. One of your allies declares an interest in "Reducing the number of X–Y relations articles dramatically" (his italics) another openly admits if concensus was there he'd "support deleting all bilateral relations articles" (my italics) , some of you discuss tactics for deletion such as when it will be safe to use prod tags - and recently there's been a continual flow of new ADF noms from various editors.

Im not apologizing for using the word deletionist to describe the sort of attention these articles are receiving. Its not a pejorative term . The encyclopedia would soon loose any value if detritus was never removed, and anyway a quick glance at edit histories suggests most or all of you do your fair share of quality creative edits on other topics. So no disrespect is felt at all, we just have different POV, but that doesnt mean Im going to stay silent about the scale of deletionist efforts directed against these IR articles. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there certainly should be an effort to purge this junk from our midst. It's been sitting around far too long already, and a streamlined process for removing it is in everyone's interest. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not in anybody's interest whatsoever to remove valid, referenced and interesting information from an encyclopaedia!!! I concur in the strongest possible terms with FeydHuxtable, there is a concerted effort and our friend Biruitorul seems to be going for the complete annihilation of these articles at every AfD he can get his hands on. HJMitchell You rang? 21:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Er, no, just applying the GNG and keeping trivia out of our midst, thank you very much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

What you're labelling as trivia is important information about relations between pairs of countries. That aside, some are utter bollocks, I'll give you that, but some are worth saving and you're showing no regard whatsoever for the articles that could be developed into something meaningful and other editors are getting swept along with it. I couldn't agree more that the worst of them should be consigned to the dustbin, though I think it speaks volumes that my invitation to help on Argentina–Pakistan relations was ignored. HJMitchell You rang? 17:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If, at Argentina-Pakistan, I'd simply said "delete, not notable", then you'd have a point. But I actually reviewed everything quite carefully, as my comments showed. That we reached different conclusions is true, but I can't be accused of recklessness. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No one's accusing you of recklessness Biruitorul – relentlessness maybe :-). You're always careful to remain polite and to base your arguments on policy; thats what makes you so dangerous to this topic. That and the fact its not just yourself, you seem to have assemble an elite demolition crew to aid you in purging this entire class of articles. I think Im going to go on your talk page and get on my cyber knees begging you to reconsider the value of this topic, Im not sure what else I can do to help save this obviously important series of articles as too few seem to be willing to argue the opposite corner against you and your crew.FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no cabal. And for the last time: yes, many of these are notable, but many are not, for lack of significant independent coverage. We can't get around WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

FeydHuxtable, since you have quoted me earlier on this talk page as one of Biruitorul's "allies" I feel that I may be part of your perceived "elite demolition crew". So perhaps it helps to reduce tensions if I explain exactly what motivates me to "reduc[e] the number of X–Y relations articles dramatically". First, I am not sure how many of these there actually are; I just look at those that make it to AfD or central noticeboards. If there are thousands of high-quality articles of this kind that never get into my focus because they are not being proposed for deletion, then I take back the word "dramatically". Of course the matter got my attention due to the mass-creation of obviously non-notable articles (I don't know who exactly was responsible for that and if it has stopped now), and the disruptive attempts to save them (by Hilary T and others). Here are some principles that I expect we don't agree about, and that are significant for the way I see these articles. Sorry it's so long; I don't have the time to make it shorter.

• While Wikipedia tries to become the sum of all human knowledge, it also needs to ensure that all its articles are interesting to a sufficiently large number of editors and readers. WP:N isn't just about people not writing about their pets. It also makes sure that articles such as Eye colour of Barack Obama are created only if 1) notability of the topic is established by reliable sources, or 2) it becomes necessary per WP:Summary style. Otherwise we would have no end of POV forks, and it would be almost impossible for editors interested in a topic to monitor the quality of all our articles on it.
• Articles combining two or more topics are generally a bad idea, even if those topics are very relevant and have their own articles. Exceptions: * Discussing several topics together rather than in individual articles is good encyclopedic practice (and not done enough in some areas of WP). * When there is too much information about X and Y in the article on X, it certainly makes sense to create a new article on X and Y and only summarise it in the X article (and the Y article). * When the topic "X and Y" itself is so important that it passes WP:N on its own merits.

Let me try to illustrate the main reason why it's generally a bad idea: Suppose we have 1000 editors who are interested in widgets and 100 types of widget, each with its own article. Then we can expect that most widget articles be on the watchlists of a reasonable number of editors. Widgets are the most important components of gadgets; in fact they are usually the main selling point. Therefore most manufacturers combine two or more widgets of different types in each of their gadgets. Some of these combinations are highly effective and quite common; others are existent but more accidental; and some are outright weird. There will be a 100 or so sets of two or more widget types that pass WP:N. No problem if these are included. But if we create the 5,000 articles for all widget pairings, we get into trouble. For most there is simply not enough information to make a good article. At least half of these pairings will only be on the watchlists of those few editors who are sufficiently obsessed about widgets to watchlist all pairings. Vandalism or other problematic changes to such articles will likely not be noticed. Also most readers will simply not see the information. Rather than reading "X is often combined with A (in a gadgets), B (in b gadgets), C (in c, e or f gadgets), D (d gadgets), E (in e or k gadgets) or F (in f gadgets), sometimes with G or H (most notably in h gadgets), and rarely with I, J or K", they would have to click through many articles to find the information; after hitting a number of boring stubs they would probably give up. And should the fact that widgets of types X, C and F are combined in f gadgets really be discussed in six articles? (Three for the individual widget types, and three for the pairings.) We should really give the full picture at the article on f gadgets, and summarise what's relevant to X, C and F at the X, C and F articles.

• Importance in the real world (how many people are affected etc.) is not a good measure for encyclopedicity. It is perfectly normal that we already have an article How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?, while squared paper is still a red link. The former is a typical encyclopedia topic; an article on the latter would be nice to have, but the lack of sources suggests that people are not too keen on reading about this, makes it much harder to write such an article, and there are also not enough motivated editors.
• And then there is the slippery slope argument. See Relations between Helmut Kohl and Kurt Tucholsky for an example of where X–Y relations may lead us. Now that I have written it, that article looks more convincing to me than those X–Y articles for which I voted "keep" in an AfD. But it's complete bullshit in the technical sense. Note that it also passes many of the criteria analogous to what has been proposed for state relations. I believe it would easily survive an AfD, and I can only hope that nobody moves it into mainspace to make a point. Can you imagine the BLP nightmare if we allowed such articles? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are perceived as being an elite member of the crew Hans. In abstract terms your widget comparison seems good. But in practical terms theres the world of difference. Due to component orientated design articles about the relationships between widgets would be almost redundent (except as you say to a few widget fanatics) , its enough to know the interfaces of each widget then engineers can design a suitable gadget for what ever purpose. This isnt analogous at all to BR. The logic of events involving people is nothing like the logic of systems. There's scores of possible uses for articles on particular bilateral relationships – merchants can weight up opportunities for international trade, journalists can put statements from country z about country Y into context, folk arranging international conferences have the information in a readily digestible form to make decisions for optimal outcomes, etc ect.

On vandalism, we'd only need one person with an interest in each nation to have about 200 articles on their watch lists to cover the whole set? I read you article on Helmut & Tucholsky, it was interesting, I dont really know much about BLP except I've seen some talk about its high profile on a few RfAs, I guess youre probably right about that. But again there isn't really a comparison in practical terms with bilateral relations. I dont really know what more I can do to try to communicate how useful these articles could be. Should I relate some specific stories about how negotiations have broke down through lack of information? Or dig out some studies on the matter. I've read quite a bit of literature on IR, and mostly scholars seem to take the importance of actors being cognizant of information on relations as a given, and concentrate on more interesting determinants of favourable outcomes, but Im sure something could be found? Maybe I've said all I should and its just best for me to pray and see if a consensus emerges from the efforts of others? Thanks for taking the time to explain your thoughts, Im sorry it hasn't helped us move towards agreement, maybe it will on reflection. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I am in the middle on this debate. Some of the stub articles can and should be expanded and saved. I have salvaged a few - but I can't agree with keeping a stub article that gives little real information and no evidence of notability. Some (a few) of the stubs have no verifiable information at all, and a search cannot find any: they should be deleted. Many of them have some minor information, worth preserving in a table within a "Foreign relations of ..." article, but not enough to stand alone. They should be merged and I have been doing just that. I think the "Foreign relations of..." tables are useful in giving an overview, even when a table entry shows that the relations with another country are low-keyed. See an essay at User:Aymatth2/Relations for the approach. It is quite possible that a notable dispute will blow up between two countries, or that an editor who knows more about the relationship between two countries will decide to create an article on the subject. If they can build it on good sources that show notability, no problem at all. But for now, merging seems a better compromise than either keeping or deleting. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Need a invitation and welcome template for this wikiproject

Examples:

• Category:WikiProject invitation templates
• Category:WikiProject-specific welcome templates

Ikip (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Angola in Moscow - Embassy of Angola in Moscow A user proposed for deletion. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing List of diplomatic missions articles about SMOM

• List of diplomatic missions of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta
• List of diplomatic missions to the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

• list of delegations of SMOM to international organizations: [2]
• list of diplomatic relations with SMOM: [3]
• list of diplomatic missions of SMOM to countries: [4]
• MISSING: list of diplomatic missions to SMOM

Most of the independent countries and also some unrecognized countries and the EU have such articles. As SMOM is a sovereign entitiy engaging in diplomatic relations with states maybe there should be articles for its missions too? Alinor (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston - Someone has nominated the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston - Someone has nominated the Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston article for deletion WhisperToMe (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre - nominated for deletion

Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged fabrication of the Nanking Massacre. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding {{primarysources}} to various articles, including Estonia–Luxembourg relations

<discussion moved from User talk:Bali ultimate> Today you re-added {{primarysources}} to the above article, despite the fact that it includes several inline references, I compiled from various contributors. Can you be a bit more specific which elements you feel aren't sufficiently sourced, possible adding to each of them. Thank you. -- User:Docu Inline, yes. But to primary sources. You've been an editor here long enough to, somehow, become an admin, and if you don't know what a primary source is, I don't see how i can help you. I didn't say anything about "insufficiently" sourced, though i don't think that a primary source discussing a double taxation treaty actually says anything noteworthy about a bilateral relationship. But that's an entirely different discussion. The fact that the article hangs entirely on primary sources is why the tag is there, and rightfully so. I direct you to WP:RS and WP:V and WP:N if you have more questions about sourcing, verification and notability. I'll simply remove further posts of yours here without comment if you don't sign them properly.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Can you advise which elements you think aren't sufficiently sourced? This would really help. Please be a bit more specific, just listing RS,V,N, doesn't advance us much. I'm not quite sure which reference you are refering to with a "primary source discussing a double taxation treaty". If you don't take the time explaining, you should understand that one might remove the tag without further discussion. -- User:Docu Estonia–Luxembourg relations 1. Estonia–Luxembourg relations are foreign relations between Estonia and Luxembourg. 2. Luxembourg recognised Estonia on February 22, 1923 and re-recognised Estonia on August 27, 1991. 3. Both countries re-established diplomatic relations on August 29, 1991. 4. Estonia is represented in Luxembourg through its embassy in Brussels (Belgium) and an honorary consulate in Luxembourg. 5. Luxembourg is represented in Estonia through its embassy in Prague (Czech Republic). 6. There are about 300 Estonians living in Luxembourg. 7. An Estonian cultural association was founded in 1998. 8. The Estonian President Arnold Rüütel's state visit to Luxembourg was in May 2003, 9. prime minister Andrus Ansip's in 2006. 10. The Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker visited Estonia in 1999 and 2007. 11. Both countries are full members of NATO and of the European Union. 12. Trade agreement between Estonia and Belgium and Luxembourg (1935) 13. Agreement on Road Transport between Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (came into force 1.12.94); 14. Agreement Between Estonia and the Belgo-Luxembourg Economic Union on the Reciprocal Promotion and Protection of Investments (came into force 23.09.99); 15. Agreement Between Estonia and the States of Benelux on Readmission of Persons (came into force 1.02.05) 16. Agreement on the Avoidance of Double Taxation and the Prevention of Income and Capital Tax evasion (signed 23.05.2006) (External links, added here only after it was moved to WT:WP International relations) Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs about relations with Luxembourg Estonian embassy in Brussels (also accredited to Luxembourg) For your convenience, I added a copy of the article you tagged above and numbered a series of statements. Please detail which ones you don't consider sufficiently referenced. -- User:Docu </discussion moved from User talk:Bali ultimate 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)>

As this is of more general interest, I moved the discussion here instead of Talk:Estonia–Luxembourg relations. Bali ultimate had declined to answer any questions on his talk page.

Please be specific when commenting. Instead of saying, "'the sources' don't meet the criteria of 'Wikipedia' or some two-letter short-cut", please indicate "#1 doesn't need a reference as both are countries listed in the relevant ISO standard" or "the second part of #1 doesn't mention a reference and, as Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources requires to 'avoid repeating gossip', it should be removed." -- User:Docu 08:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC), updated 08:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

All of the sources in the article currently are "primary" as they are defined here, for instance the government circulars on treaties. WP:RS may help you clear up the difference between primary and other sources. Hope that clears it up for you.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you list for which numbers you don't deem them appropriate and why? ("While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution") -- User:Docu

<discussion moved from Talk:Estonia–Luxembourg relations> I've answered the question here. A primary source is a primary source. I won't explain why, in any fashion, why articles whose sources are primary sources need a "primarysources" tag. If you ask the same question of me in future, i promise i will ignore it.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) </discussion moved from Talk:Estonia–Luxembourg relations>

I guess that concludes his contribution to the question. -- User:Docu 11:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue whether this article is on a notable subject, how primary sources are used seems to be a frequent point of contention. The problem with using primary sources is simply that any user can introduce a novel conclusion by solely using primary sources in an article; this is, AFAICS, the only reason secondary sources are preferred. However, a secondary source can easily become a primary source if it is cited as evidence for what the writer thought or believed -- hence confusion, frustration & nastiness ensues. As long as a primary source is quoted in a way that requires a minimum of interpretation, & no reliable authority on the topic claims the source requires any specialist knowledge, then it can be used -- but with reasonable care. For example, it's silly to insist that someone needs to reference a news story to say that Barak Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the US Supreme Court today, when one can reference his nominating speech; that speech will be linked to in any case, since it's reasonable to expect the reader to want to read it. So in the case Docu cites above, unless there something unmentioned that contradicts my understanding, primary sources are used reasonably & responsibly. Complaining about their use is tendentious editing, & could lead to sanctions for disrupting Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move for Shirley Temple

There's a request here to move "Shirley Temple" to "Shirley Temple Black". Folks might like to weigh in with their opinions. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What does it mean by non-governmental actors?

I look up the word actor in the dictionary and it says "one that takes part in any affair". Rather vague in this case. What does it include specifically?

• Someone in one nation trying to protect an animal whose migration would be disrupted by a wall built between the two countries?
• Notable organizations that try to stop illegal immigration, drug smuggling, sex slave trafficking, or other problems from one nation to another?
• Someone complaining about the land mines used as a permanent border between the two nations?
• Prominent religious figures or institutions that are trying to bring the two nations together?

Dream Focus 04:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

To elaborate what it means, we'd need to look at specific bilateral relations. Government ministers and ambassadors are obviously not non-governmental. Is there a specific article you have in mind? -- User:Docu 07:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Project banners

For bilateral relations articles, each article should probably include the banners of the WikiProjects for the two country projects banners in addition to:

{{WikiProject International relations}}

-- User:Docu

Proposed Renaming of 2008 South Ossetia war

Good day, everyone! I would just like to let everyone know that currently, there is a discussion underway at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war#Requested move about a renaming of the article from its current name ("2008 South Ossetia war") to "Russia-Georgia war" or "Russian-Georgian war". This discussion seems to be spending literally more space on Russia's war guilt, or absence thereof, than what English-speakers actually call this war!

A similar discussion already occurred about two to three months ago, during which an extraordinarily slim majority of users (the final tally was 24-23, although one user voted for both sides and the deciding vote was cast after the survey had been concluded for several hours) defeated the proposed renaming. However, the renaming proposal was brought back up, as some individuals feel that a new consensus has appeared.

I hope that the input from this project will help get the discussion back on track, so that the improvement of this article, which your project considers to be of Top Importance, will swiftly continue. And personally, I don't really care what we call the war, as long as we consider our readers in the process. Thank you, and happy editing! Laurinavicius (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Consulate General" or "Consulate-General"?

Feel free to reroute me if there's a better place to bring this up. Which is our standard term, "Consulate-General" with a hyphen or "Consulate General" without a hyphen? I'm seeing both in articles, often even mixed in the same article, and I'm not sure which fix is the right one. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Merging lists - request for comment

The debate over how to deal with all the stub "x - y relations" articles led to creation of lists in many of the "Foreign relations of x" articles, and the start of a process to merge the stubs into these lists. Typically, each list entry gives the date when diplomatic relations began, a link to an article on the relations if there is one, and the missions (e.g. embassy, consulate general) serving the relationship:

Country	Formal Relations Began	Notes
Algeria	1980-07-31	Algeria has an embassy in Harare[1]
Angola		See Angola–Zimbabwe relations Angola has an embassy in Harare[2] Zimbabwe has an embassy in Luanda[3]

The set of countries included in each "foreign relations of x" list is arbitrary: just the countries for which there is an article or stub on bi-lateral relations. There may be other countries with more significant relations that at least deserve a list entry, if not a complete article. One measure of relationship's significance is whether the countries have resident embassies or consulates general. With many countries there are articles that list "missions of" and "missions in". E.g. List of diplomatic missions of Guyana and List of diplomatic missions in Guyana.

Question: Should the three types of list: "bilateral relations of country x", "list of missions of country x" and "list of missions in country x" be consolidated into one table, giving a more complete view? See Foreign relations of Zimbabwe for a pilot article that takes this approach. Or are there good reasons to keep the three types of list in separate articles? Aymatth2 (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This doesn't address directly your question, but instead of a table, I think a structure with a series of infoboxes could be helpful, similar to episode lists. -- User:Docu