Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7

RE: Subdivisions and names

It would be better to have the section titled as "Administrative Divisions" for each and every country, rather than the title as the name of the respective division/subdivision - only for the main page. Corresponding pages could then be the name of the appropriate division/subdivision. Would you agree? I only speak from the standpoint of standardization... with a small input from working with the UN. Rarelibra 13:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better if you had discussed it here before making mass changes to the pages? This apart from the minor MoS violation of having "Division" in upper case. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is that I DIDN'T KNOW until now, but the changes have been happening. As stated, the wiki project isn't an "end all, be all" of things - and for standardization ease, it would make more sense to call it "Administrative Divisions". As for the "minor MoS violation" you mention - again, it isn't an "end all, be all". I can definitely show you in an official MoS that it is proper to title as such, not to leave a lower case name in the title. So two things - one, this discussion comes at a time when the wiki project has been pointed out to me, and two, same with the "MoS" you mention. Be careful with assumptions, as your "wouldn't it have been better..." statement suggests. I work with this type of data on a daily basis, thus, I think it qualifies for me to have at least an input. Rarelibra 17:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the purpose of a Wikiproject is to standardise related topics. Considering the magnitude of the change, consensus must be sought to effect the changes; that's part and parcel of wikipedia functioning. (See Wikipedia:Consensus) Secondly, I don't believe that I have mentioned anywhere above that it is an "end all, be all" as you have put it. Neither have I denied your right to post proposals. Your contributions (Uzbekistan, Greece, Ethopia, Bulgaria, India) suggest that you have made unilateral changes before waiting for more input from the community.

Correct, however - when one is working with Wiki on a daily basis - as I have for over a year now, and making additions or changes, etc. without the knowledge of such projects, well, you can't point a finger of 'blame and shame'. Fact is, I have helped a lot in having to touch almost every country page as I go, and helping to alphabetize, add wiki links, correct spelling, correct format... the list goes on and on. In the meantime, you accuse me of a blanket-style effort like my only motive is to visit these pages just to change this. As far as the "magnitude" of the change - remember, Wiki is a living and breathing environment, full of constant change. Be very careful as to take personally my edits of standardization as I work with the pages on a daily basis (and it makes sense for the user to find the information quickly, as is one of the reasons I need such). A user may not know right away the name of the division of a country, and it is quite easy to find as an "administrative division". Give me credit, please. A good example of this, too, is the fact that I wasn't aware of such a wiki project until now (this week). Other users of the 'community' you speak of may also not know. Just FYI - your verbage of "unilateral changes" and "waiting for more input" etc DO speak of "end all, be all" solutions. Rarelibra 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the Manual of Style, please see this: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Wording: Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. Use "Rules and regulations", not "Rules and Regulations". Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Just for your benefit, I will go ahead and get you the proper reference of rules of style in regards to headings and such. I worked as an editor for several years for US Government publications, so again - I know a little bit about style. 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

So here you go:

3.49. In matter set in caps and small caps or caps and lowercase, capitalize all principal words, including parts of compounds which would be capitalized standing alone. The articles a, an, and the; the prepositions at, by, for, in, of, on, to, and up; the conjunctions and, as, but, if, or, and nor; and the second element of a compound numeral are not capitalized. (See also rule 8.129.)
8.129. To enclose titles of addresses, articles, awards, books, captions, editorials, essays, headings, subheadings, headlines, hearings, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), operas, papers, short poems, reports, songs, studies, subjects, and themes. All principal words are to be capitalized.
3.51. In a heading set in caps and lowercase or in caps and small caps, a normally lowercased last word, if it is the only lowercased word in the heading, should also be capitalized.

As you can see, the CORRECT MoS is to capitalize ALL in a heading or subheading. The Wiki MoS is INCORRECT, according to proper references. Rarelibra 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And one other thing for you to READ and REMEMBER - this is directly from the Wiki MoS - "Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so: the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.". This also goes for Wiki projects - "Remember that everything below are guidelines. Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way. However, having the same "look & feel" for the country articles would be great." So please - stop sharpshooting me, and concentrate on those people out there who exist only to ruin and vandalize our joint efforts to make Wiki a great place. Rarelibra 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like this idea that all country articles shoudl have a standardised "Administrative divisions" heading. It is much better to have a heading specific to the country. This attempt at standardisation seems to have been done without consensus, and so changes to the project guidelines shoudl be reverted. JPD (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not clear and "user friendly" to use the country-specific heading, as it is easier and clear when looking at the administrative division/subdivision of each country, whereby there is a definition of what it is called, how many, and background information, etc. Just FYI read above - "Remember that everything below are guidelines. Not all countries are the same, and not everything can be pushed into a framework in the same way. However, having the same "look & feel" for the country articles would be great." Also reference the statement "This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question." Rarelibra 14:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are two points here - firstly that I disagree with your unilateral change to the guideline here. It may only be a guidleine, but it does purport to represent some sort of community view and so should not be changed without consensus. I find it more user-friendly to use the country-specific heading, at the very least where the names of the subdivisions are English words. Secondly, despite the statements that you draw my attention to, you are trying to enforce your idea of a standard against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Please stop. JPD (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully support JPD's position.--cj | talk 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Words like 'unilateral' are funny, really. I mean, I was working on the titles for a while and then suddenly there was this 'consensus' and my work started to be changed around - so who was or is right and who was or is wrong? And by what authority? Think about the common user going to a country page - it is easiest to access the information by finding it in a common place. YOU may find it 'more user friendly' to be country-specific, but can you tell me what the administrative division name is for Seychelles or Mongolia, for example? See the point. I am not trying to 'enforce' anything, I am trying (like many others) to standardize. And please don't 'order' people around, thank you. Rarelibra 15:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You made some changes which were intended to be helpful, and some of them were reverted because others did not agree. There is nothing wrong with any of that, and it is a matter of opinion, so there is no point talking about right and wrong. Changing the guideline is another matter. The guideline is only a guideline, so noone should be enforcing either version of it (note that standardising according to a guideline and enforcing a guideline are exactly the same thing). The guideline should, however, reflect a close to consensus view, rather than one person's opinion of what is right. Otherwise, there is no point to having any guidelines at all. Yes, I do think it is more user-friendly that way, and I find the Seychelles page better than the Mongolia page for that reason, even though I didn't know what the divisions were called before looking at them. I am not claiming to be right, or even to have a consensus, simply disagreeing with your changing and pointing out that you are not indisputably right and do not have a consensus for your change. JPD (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Territorial limits

Hello, I had a question regarding the territorial limits of countries as operationally defined on Wikipedia. With respect to Wikipedia categories that categorize things by if they are "in" a country, are the territorial limits of countries either a) Its land borders, not extending to sea, b) Limited by its furthest internal waters as defined in the article territorial waters, or c) something else? I believe b, but I sought confirmation. Any assistance with answering this question of what constitues a country's ultimate territorial limits would be greatly appreciated. Kurieeto 22:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Footers

I have applied {{Navigation Template}} to some of the navigational templates (mostly continental ones). I think other such templates would benefit from this format.

I haven't invented anything, this format was used for templates for europe asia etc, I just collected the elements into a single generic template for easier use (so as to evade the usage of a number of easy to break <div>s).

--Cat out 01:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Scotland peer review

Hi, I've just listed Scotland for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Scotland - your comments on improving this coutry article are welcomed. Thanks/wangi 15:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi

In want to join this wikiproject and it said leave a comment on the talk page, well here it is! Jamie|C 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Mass content adding to small Wikipedias

Hi, I am starting again to work on the project m:Mass content adding. One of the points of the project is to use templates from bigger Wikipedias (in general, from English Wikipedia), to localize them and to make bot-commiting to the small Wikipedias. For that purpose, I think that countries should be the first pilot-project. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the developed situation I think that parts of that project should be leaded by projects like this. I.e., if you make some changes to the structure of template and/or data, you should commit that changes into multilingual project, too. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Mass content adding is not developed yet and I would like to hear your input, at least. There are a number of open questions related to organization of localization. Also, I am sure that some communities from bigger Wikipedias want to cooperate, too. For example, this would mean that all Wikipedias which participate in such project would have one, central organized templates for countries and data inside of that templates; etc. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to get some help from some of you related to the countries because I am sure that you are much better introduced into this field then me. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You can contact me via my talk page or, better, here. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

One more information (I was a long time out of this project and I forgot that I made some text about countires there): look at m:Mass content adding/Countries of the world. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 20:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add me

Hi, as an active participant in Malta article and in various geographical articles, I would like to join the wikiproject countries. Please add me to the members list. Also advise whether a userbox to this respect is available. Maltesedog 08:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

I just wanted to say hello to everyone in the wikiproject. I just joined the project and will be adding mostly to 3 countries. These countries are Cyprus, Switzerland and my favorite Thailand (Needs a lot of work!). If I can ever be of assistance just contact me on my discuss page and I will respond hopefully within 24 hours unless you post on the weekend. Felixboy 12:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Location Maps for European countries

A few days ago, I added a newly created series of maps to wikipedia, showing the location of European countries. The new maps are of higher quality than the old ones and I am of the opinion that they should replace the old location maps in the country infoboxes. The maps are available for all EU states and will soon be available for every other European state. The maps are already in use on the German wikipedia.

Examples

(Old Maps):

• 
• 
• 
• 

(New Maps):

• 
• 
• 
• 

But the new wikipedia user User:Cogito ergo sumo seems to be of an other opinion and reverted the implementation of the maps with the following comment: (revert: while new maps look nicer, restoring locator maps that are consistent among all country infoboxes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Article_template)

As a consequence of that the below shown discussion started. I would ask the other members of this project here to state their opinions to that and I'd be grateful to have a final decision on the subject whether those maps also shall be used in the English wikipedia - or not. --David Liuzzo 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Copied Discussion

______________________

(revert: while new maps look nicer, restoring locator maps that are consistent among all country infoboxes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countries/Templates#Article_template)

Of course the new maps are not consistent to the old location maps, since they are nicer and more exact than their predecessors. The only thing you achieve by reverting those changes is preventing innovation and improvement in wikipedia. If all users thought that way, wikipedia would have to use the same old and bad pictures and materials for the next two decades, just because of their consistency among each other. Your argument of consistency among all infoboxes is already a very weak one for a revert, and becomes even weaker considering that those new maps with their common style are consistent to each other. Further they are available for all 25 EU states and they will soon be available for the whole continent. --David Liuzzo 21:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your note; I'm sorry to have reverted your contributions, but your argument is not wholly compelling. While your maps are potential improvements on the preceding locator maps, they are not necessarily innovations. As with any publication, standards are in place to ensure a degree of consistency for users when perusing Wp: the country wikiproject prescribes a certain layout for all country infoboxes (with consistent locator maps); this is no different than an almanac or other compendium. I see little reason to treat EU constituents differently; if so, perhaps it would be better to use the maps or variants already available. I also note that at least one other Wikipedian reverted your map change (at least for the UK); being bold notwithstanding, perhaps you should join the wikiproject, propose and discuss a new map style/change before going ahead and implementing wholesale changes that may not be agreeable and reverted again.

If you require assistance, please feel free to ask. I hope this helps. Cogito ergo sumo 22:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well those new maps do not only include the EU countries but all European states (for examples see:Image:Europe location CH.png). And I don't think that I'll require assistance. As far as I could see, you are quite new to wikipedia, so I should ask you that question. furter I should point out that reverting articles in that number without dicussing the topic before may be regarded as great impoliteness and as sort of vandalism. --David Liuzzo 17:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes: I'm fairly new but have joined the country wikiproject. That being said, I was equally bold and restored the status quo for reasons stated (and apologise for not discussing it beforehand): your maps are not agreeable to not only me but at least one other editor, so I'm not totally off base here. Through prior discussion, you may get buy-in and suggestions for improvement. Locator maps are not just to exhibit countries in and outside Europe/the EU (noted) but to exhibit territories in relation to others around them -- yours are too Eurocentric; for example, some of your maps exhibit territories less clearly than do the other maps, particularly for smaller territories (e.g., Luxembourg) or those on the periphery of Europe (e.g., Greece, Malta). They are also quite large and (IMO unnecessarily) detailed for locator maps and can be compressed. And I have provided sufficient edit summaries and discussion regarding this, so accusations of impoliteness and vandalism are non-starters. Cogito ergo sumo 17:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

__________________________
--David Liuzzo 18:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As an outside observer I do think it is about time that the country locator maps were replaced, they are many years old and of low quality. Nonetheless, any change to 200 extremely high profile articles needs some discussion before it is introduced. We need better maps, but if we are going to change them let us ensure they are the best possible. I do have a couple problems with the orange ones. The grey outline of the continent follows a weird mix of geographical and political boundaries, and will lead to yet another round of the "what is Europe" debate. It would also be better if the maps did not have the distortion caused by a mercator like projection. The map is also quite inadequate for smaller countries like Luxembourg and Malta. - SimonP 18:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there's a little error in the grey outline, Cyprus lies of course in asia and should be white on the generic map, I'll correct that issue. If considered absolutely necessary I could create special maps for the English Wikipedia without that grey outline and outline of the EU in locations maps of EU states. The main goal is to get rid of those ugly old and grey maps. Regarding those tiny states it would be possible to create special enlarged versions with a small cut-out box containing the europe-map, similar to old maps like Image:LocationGermany.png which show an enlarged section of the continent and the world map in a small box. --David Liuzzo 20:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If considered absolutely necessary I could create special maps for the English Wikipedia without that grey outline and outline of the EU in locations maps of EU states. What? Surely it would be best to remove such supranational boundaries (such as the EU and different continents), and have land as one colour, sea as another and the specific country highlighted. These maps should be uniform across the whole of wikipedia!! Rob.derosa 10:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I for one support David Liuzzo in his effort to get rid of those ugly old and grey maps. Since maps are available for all EU member states why dont we start with those. I also agree with the idea of creating special enlarged versions with a small cut-out box containing the europe-map for the tiny states. Aristovoul0s 15:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Then we should make a decision. Here a last brief overview on all the maps which would replace the old ones:

Non-EU states

• 
  Basic Map
• 
  Albania
• 
  Bosnia-Herzegovina
• 
  Belarus
• 
  Bulgaria
• 
  Switzerland
• 
  Croatia
• 
  Iceland
• 
  Moldavia
• 
  Macedonia
• 
  Montenegro
• 
  Norway
• 
  Romania
• Serbia
  Serbia
• 
  Ukraine

EU states

• 
  European Union
• 
  Austria
• 
  Belgium
• Cyprus
  Cyprus
• 
  Czech Rep.
• 
  Denmark
• 
  Spain
• 
  Estonia
• 
  Finland
• 
  France
• 
  Germany
• 
  Greece
• 
  Hungary
• 
  Ireland
• 
  Italy
• 
  Latvia
• 
  Lithuania
• 
  Luxemburg
• 
  Malta
• 
  Netherlands
• 
  Poland
• 
  Portugal
• 
  Slovenia
• 
  Slovakia
• 
  Sweden
• 
  United Kingdom

Small states

• 
  Andorra
• 
  Liechtenstein
• 
  Monaco

--David Liuzzo 22:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Location Maps for European countries-- discussion continues

So shall they be used in the English wikipedia (as it is already the case in the German and French wiki) or not?

As there seems to be (after waiting almost 2 weeks) no objection against the implementation of the new maps and due to the fact that the user "Cogito Ergo Sumo" who prevented the implementitions with his contraproductive reverts has been banned because of malicious actions and socket-puppetery I'll just implement them now. --David Liuzzo 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a new map of Uruguay available? Wesborland 18:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, as Uruguay is not part of Europe and the new maps just deal with the location of European states there is no new map available. --David Liuzzo 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally I like the new maps, I have just some concerns regarding the small countries: The orange magnification (If you see what I mean) is confusing. But I don't know how to make it better to be honest -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am of the other opinion in that I feel the green on grey of the other maps give a great contrast if you know what I mean. Also I don't understand why the EU is highlighted if your new images become the norm will you also highlight NAFTA or the African Union in the case of Africa? Fabhcún 01:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

mmm you got a point... Being European that didn't shock me. I don't know... But the European Union is a strong entity in Europe so that makes sense having it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 02:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I echo the concerns of Fabhcún: Why do you need to hightlight the EU? Keep it simple and just hightlight the country that the article is about. New maps would be nice but I don't think that only Europe should get new maps I hope that you are working on other countries and can convert them over quickly after a concensus is reached. —MJCdetroit 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

New location maps I just stumbled upon this after editing a couple of Europe maps. I'm opposed to the new maps for a few reasons: they are inconsistent with other location maps (not just of countries), they arbitrarily include the EU (why not EFTA?), and they are simply visually less appealing. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth has the EU been highlighted in all of the European maps? The map is going to be a locator map of that particular country within the world, not within the EU. The EU highlighting should be removed (who decided if it should be the EU or NATO etc that should be highlighted - it would just be easier without). And I must say I prefered the old ones, the orange and blue doesnt look particularly attractive. Also should continental-distinctions be present on these maps also? It just seems like your trying to pack too much information onto one little map, when all it is there for is the location of that particular country. 203.114.140.222 09:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC) [This was by me Rob.derosa 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC) ]

I completely agree with the above sceptical comments. These maps look extremely uggly and doesn't fit at all with the light-colored Monobook scheme. What we need are high-res SVG versions of the older maps. I also agree that the EU highlighting is not neutral. /Slarre 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully disagree, and think that the new maps are a significant improvement. The European Union presumably has been highlighted to demonstrate in which jurisdictions the common European Union law applies. The old maps are an inferior substitute and look very unprofessional.--Tekleni 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps were much better, the nation in the article should be proudly placed in the center of the map--Hamparzoum 21:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps were ugly. These new ones look very professional and are much better. Call a vote or something...--Eupator 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the country. A small edit dispute at Belarus is going on now due to the map issue; I say that the current map of Belarus (as displayed above) is plenty big for the article infobox. It's big enough to stand out. But, for small states like the ones displayed here, the old maps should be used until we get some kind of zoom function in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree that the grey/orange/blue colours are as ugly as sin, I much prefer the white/grey/green. Also, it's kind of hard to see some of the smaller countries with these maps. I've got no problem with new maps, I just don't like these ones. Lankiveil 06:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

I prefer the old maps, don't see a reason to highlight Europe or the EU. We should try to convey the information "where on Earth is that country located" with as little distraction by other information as possible. Kusma (討論) 12:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps would clearly benefit from being recreated with greater detail. But the emphasis is on <recreation>. Each individual nation state should be identified alone within a global (or, arguably, continential) context. Membership or otherwise of regional blocs by other nation states in the proximity of the state in question should not be included for the summary maps we're talking about. There is no justification for doing so, not least as this would produce a non-standard practice across all Wikipedia country entries (quite aside from the NPOV considerations).

Me, I'm open to individual countries being shown in a continential context (i.e. Nigeria with Africa, Mexico within North America) though the present standard is to use a global context. Please also be aware that the discussion on this page is largely invisible to editors of and contrubutors to country pages; we should not assume that agreements reached on this page have the wider acceptance necessary to make any other than cosmetic changes to the maps. JamesAVD 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to any change in the EU-countries maps that will not show EU as a whole. EU is a political/economic/cultural entity, and membership is permanent (i.e. there are no clauses for EU's possible dissolution or withdrawal of any member). Removing the relative location of these countries in EU can be compared to showing the states of the US independently. See Oregon, Montana, Louisiana etc. •NikoSilver• 14:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with showing the whole EU is that it is so large compared to its member countries, and also that the maps with the EU show too much detail (rivers and stuff). I think our maps should only show the location information with as little distraction as possible. The maps with the green countries and without the EU do that better than our maps that include the EU. Kusma (討論) 15:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For exmaple at Slovenia, the non-EU map is clearly superior at any small size. Kusma (討論) 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree it is much clearer, and even if it were, (as in the case of Cyprus) then we would definitely be able to do that:

In any case, I propose this situation garners full consensus. There have to be notifications to all portals and country talk pages before any so drastic change. •NikoSilver• 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Always a good idea. I have invited many country talk pages to this discussion as an answer to JamesAVD's comments. I think that the new maps-with-EU need to be displayed larger than they currently are to make much sense, which would necessitate changes to Template:Infobox Country. Note that de:Slowenien has a larger map, which looks better already. Kusma (討論) 15:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to coloring the EU nations in the maps. Why should we do this? Systematic bias? Will we painting other blocs? CARICOM, CSN, NAFTA, NATO? I have no objections to the new maps if the coloring scheme is changed but they should be implemented across Wikipedia, not exclusively to European countries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelr31 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with •NikoSilver• that there should be (or should have been) a consensus on this issue. However, to draw comparison between a U.S. state and a country that is in the EU is a poor example. First of all, while the countries in the EU have given up some sovereignty, they are still independent countries. I don't remember the UK or Poland asking the EU's permission to go war with Iraq or Afghanistan. Does anyone know if Maryland or Oregon has gone to war with anyone lately? Me neither. Secondly, the current Template:Infobox Country has field called Accession to EU which is wiki-linked the EU article. I feel that to have the EU highlighted in the map only complicates things —keep it simple. The article is about the individual country and not about the EU. If the reader wants to know more about the EU, they can click on one of the wiki-links to the EU. —MJCdetroit 17:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct note, but full military cooperation and external policy is just one of the criteria for such an issue, and I only stated my pro-EU biased opinion on this. :-) In any case, you must admit that the EU is the greatest attempt of unity of different nations in the world, as it includes sovereignity/economy/currency/culture and many more I am bored to list. I admit the map is debatable, though. Possibly we could have a poll as soon as we list all options? •NikoSilver• 21:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Unlike JamesAVD, who seems to want everything EU stripped from the infobox, I think the point of contention is the highlighted maps. I made my position clear on the highlighting of the EU above —the keep it simple argument. However, I may not have made as clear that I think new maps would be nice, but for all countries (and territories). I would consider myself one of the main editors over at Template:Infobox Country and we worked very hard over there to standardize all countries to use one infobox that has a similar look from country to country. The infobox editors probably should have been included a little sooner in the decision to start changing the look of some of the infoboxes. —MJCdetroit 00:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me first make it clear that I was kidding about my pro-EU-pov bias (not that I oppose it, but it certainly doesn't govern my behavior). I appreciate your work in the infobox, and everybody elses with all those tedious maps. KISS is nice too. This change came way too WP:BOLD for most of us, and that probably justifies my disproportionate reaction in the first place. Indeed, this is an odd place for a political debate and indeed EU is not as consolidated as the US (obviously). If others too feel that EU is not necessary in the map, I'll go along. •NikoSilver• 01:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A dispute has arisen in relation to the discussion here. It is my belief that the root problem is that none or few of the editors of the country pages were even aware that this discussion was taking place. The result has been that David Liuzzo decided to implement his superbly-crafted and graphically much-improved maps across the pages of countries which are members of the EU without (in my view) sufficient debate. I've been reviewing the UK page for quite a time but had only recently noticed the change. Finding no discussion on the UK talk pages I chose to revert the map (which I think is misleading - I'll expand on this below) on this and all other pages. I've also started a discussion on each of the talk pages; Kusma and others have made us all aware of the discussion (or lack of discussion before the chahges) which have occured (out of view) here. Editors may seek to contribute here or on the country talk pages; we need to allow for this.

It remains my opinion that for an infobox map of Poland (for instance) to also identify several other members of a particular regional grouping (of whatever constintutional form) is a) non-standard and b) potentially putting over a particular point of view. Both of these latter problems should be avoided in Wikipedia. Clearly we need a standard approach for each country, this being an encyclopedia. Clearly also we should avoid potentially POV statements: there is (it goes without saying) much dispute as to the constitutional status of the EU; until there is a consensus on that status we should avoid including elements (such as other EU members on maps, or EU accession dates prominent in the infobox) which give the impression that the debate has been resolved one way or the other.

This is not to say that the EU is either good or bad or inbetween. The goal is not to present something as a fact or give it undue prominence until we know it to be a fact.

Nor is this to say that we should therefore accept the old and less attractive maps which are Wikipedia standard. We should ideally have much better drawn maps (much like David Liuzzo's superb examples) which identify nation states alone and not other members of one regional group or another, which show either a state in a global context, or in a regional context where necessary, perhaps with a separate cut-out for the global picture as happens on some country pages. Clearly smaller countries need more attention paid to how to best identify them. This is a separate debate to whether or not regional blocs should also be shown. Thoughts? JamesAVD 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First, on the EU, why the EU, what about all the other organizations, unions, etc. Since the member countries share a constitution, laws, have reciprocal agreements on everything from taxation to pensions, etc., it can be argued that the EU is a "super-country" and it makes sense to reflect that in a map. Second, however, I cannot support the current maps as proposed because of readability issues. Generally speaking, the map needs to be bigger so as to not shrink countries into unrecognizeable blips. More importantly, the detail needs to be absolutely crisp... when engineering for a small scale, things like aliasing which are used to make big items look smooth now make small things unintelligible. I cut and enlarged the map of Latvia (my main area of interest/expertise/contributions) to get a better look and it's all a blurry mush. The map has do be drawn at its intended scale, not done on a large scale and resized down. It simply doesn't work that way. (I've done a lot of text and image web work, so this is the voice of the school of hard knocks.) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Peters: 'It can be argued', but of course it can be argued either way and to promote the EU as a super country when it might not be is promoting potentially incorrect material in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Taking one view point or the other might also cause offence, so we should avoid the potential misleading or POV statement and aim for standardisation, NPOV and good graphics. Can't comment on your sizng points, I quite like the look of the proposed maps in general. JamesAVD 17:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, David, I like your map of Europe, and I hope that the problems Pēters mentions can be fixed without too much work. I have no problem with a continental context and to me, this kind of map looks a lot more professional than the old white/green maps. However, since the EU is not a nation as such but an association of independent nations, I would personally feel better if the EU was not included. But comparing e.g. the two images for Norway, the new one is a definite improvement. The maps including the EU shouldn't be deleted as such, they would make great illustrations in articles about a nation's relations with the EU. Similar types of maps could be made for e.g. articles about EFTA or the OECD. I also agree with the sentiment that all countries should use a similar type of map, so if the location maps for Europe are to be replaced, the same should apply for the other continents (needless to say, this process can be done in stages starting with the European material). Except for the EU bit, I like the new images. Just my thoughts. And btw, Nikosilver this place might be a bit odd for a political debate about the EU or its future, but "permanent" is a word rarely used in politics - for good reason. In this case, the Supreme Court of Denmark was asked a few years ago by Parliament what would happen should Denmark one day wish to leave the EU. The Court stated that at the end of the day, the national constitution applies over the EU constitution and that such a scenario was hypothetically possible. (It would probably be a bad idea, but that's another story). When Danish politicians informed members of the EP and the Commission that this issue had become a topic in our national debate, everybody they talked to agreed that member states have this right. A right to leave the EU was also included in the (non-ratified) EU constitution (Article I-60) [1]. The constitution also mentioned the possibility of leaving the military cooperation (Article III-312) [2]. Sorry if the last bit bored anybody, but this issue became very dominant in our last national EU debate. Regards. Valentinian ^{(talk) / (contribs)} 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the new maps, but wish that the subject country could be even easier to distinguish from the EU member countries colour. Jkelly 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The only observation I have is that, whichever maps are used, the colors on the map should be distinguishable by those who are colorblind. --Badger151 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A question. Is it the intention that the new-style location map with EU boundaries shown should should be used for all European countries? or just for those within the EU? —Ian Spackman 20:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's completely POV to highlight the countries of the European Union and the borders of Europe, furthermore it's also completely useless. The majority of users viewing the page about a country won't be from the European Union, so the difference will be lost upon them. The old maps could be bettered by a non-POV map with a better and more detailed view, however, this map is too POV to do that. nl.wikipedia has already (for the moment) decided not to use them on grounds of POV and being too "Mercator". Niels|en talk-nl talk (faster response)| 02:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

EU placement is reasonable choice, but if the map will be cropped, then showing particular region, (i.e. one of the Baltic States, so probably could be good idea to zoom a bit to this particular state and do not showing some of, lets say, Western Mediterranean and/or Africa line) so in this case we can loose whole picture of EU, which is probably not welcome. Second point how we going to inform readers that the additional color means? M.K. 10:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I do oppose the new style maps. The EU is not a country, depicting it otherwise is simply POV. Besides, the Spain new map is terrible, it does not even show the Canary Islands. Regards, Asterion^talk 17:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Any massive scale implementation like this should be consensuated and agreed beforehand. This is not the way.

UK centric comment - In the case of the United kingdom article, a map demonstrating the borders of individual countries within the UK gives far more relevant information, and is a better summary than a map of the UK's geographical position within the EU. This alone should be reason enough not to use these maps in the UK article in preference of a map of the UK itself, as it would better conform to WP:LEDE - it may be an image in an infobox, but it's still a part of the lede section. Crimsone 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask why Turkey has not been included in Europe? Turkey is an official candidate for European Union membership, and will likely become a member in the next decade or so. These new maps - whilst an improvement on the previous versions - must include Turkey as a European country. Ouip 20.22, 5th November 2006 (GMT).

A few comments from someone who is European...

• These maps are much better looking than the old maps and should become the new standard.
• Where is the map of San Marino and Vatican City?
• The previous editor Ouip, brought up an interesting point, currently Turkey is correctly shaded, the 3% of Turkey that is actually in Europe is shaded and the rest of Turkey should not be shaded, if and when Turkey joins the EU we can pick up the discussion then, Turkey still has a very long way to go.
• Cyprus is not in Europe but a member of the EU, It should be shaded with a different color.

However, upon more inspection of the Belarus map, I wish there was a more defined way we can look at the borders. I can see the lines, but not very well (Im using a 1024x768 LCD monitor from dell). While Image:LocationBelarus.png looks drawn in MS Paint, I could see the lines well, and Belarus a bit better and not have to see the African continent below. What I am getting at is this: Can we, at each article's descretion, use the map of our choice and perhaps crop the new map to suit our needs? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth us separating the graphical from the political question here? On the graphical side, there seems to be some support for the maps proposed above (in terms of format) but also a certain movement to perhaps more focus on specific smaller areas or better defined borders and so on. Do we like the idea of a similar quality of picture but greater depth? Is anyone formly of the opinion that we should only have global or continental-scale maps? JamesAVD 11:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The maps are wonderful. I fully support their introduction into each European country's map on the main article. One criticism is correct though. Smaller EU countries like Slovenia are hard to see. The orange highlighted area blend with regards to the EU's already-shaded orange. Maybe if it were a different colour scheme? Regardless, I really like it.

My vote, for what it's worth, is strongly in favor of the new maps over the old. Showing fewer rivers would probably help visually, and I think there should be more close-up boxes to bring smaller countries (even Slovenia-sized countries) into better focus.

Regarding the EU, if it is an exclusive gathering of countries (in that its members cannot be members of some other equivalent merger of national interests), and if it is more than just a trade pact (like NAFTA), then I believe it is useful as a supranational entity. I am not European, but my understanding of the EU is that of a group of nations choosing to see themselves as part of a "family" (I cannot think of a better term at the moment). And they choose identification and political association with that family. To the contrary, NAFTA members do not think of their bond in the same way at all.

If there are other equivalent entities in the world, they should be shown as well. I think it's very useful to place a country within this larger context. Saraalan 01:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The maps are graphically a bit nicer than the old maps. But I think for consistency a lot of issues have to be solved:

• For consistency all maps of all countries need to be changed to the new format
• For consistency maps of all provinces and/or regions have to become available for countries sporting the new format (as they are for the old format)
• For consistency maps of all communicties regions have to become available for countries sporting the new format (as they are for the old format)

Until at least a major consensus is reached that the new formats will be expanded to cover all these three issues I am strongly opposed to instating new maps. Arnoutf 14:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I much prefer the old maps. The colour usage is vastly better, and the EU representation is unneccessary. I am also persuaded by the consistency argument. Noisy | Talk 15:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The old maps have been restored to make wikipedia uniform once again, if a new style were to be implemented, an agreemebt should be reached here, and all countries should be changed, not just Europe. Rob.derosa 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. The new maps are better, and uniformity does not mean we should use the same rule for the whole world.--Panarjedde 15:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Because you like the new maps better you decide they should be put back up right? Er and uniformitiy means the same style of map for each country, which makes sense - you wouldn't see Encylcopedia Britannica using one map style for Europe and another for the rest of the world would you? Until a decision is reached on which maps should be used the status quo should be restored. Rob.derosa 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Please vote here, no discussion, on which style of maps should be adopted for the European countries (either Old or New). Then maybe we can resolve this once and for all Rob.derosa 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Old - To ensure wikipedia uses a consistent style for all countries. Rob.derosa 15:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a "Country"?

Some "country" articles are about geographical regions. According to our NPOV rules this means that the history must give appropriate weight to all the people who have lived in the region.

Other "country" articles are about contemporary Nation States which are dominated by a particular racial group. Their history sections are the history of the dominant race. The history of other races ("aboriginals") is relegated to a subsidiary article.

In the latter case, how does our template treat the non-dominant race? Fourtildas 04:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

A country is defined by its government, not its race. --Golbez 13:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

And when it's dominant race, whether majority or minority, defines its government? Think apartheid... Rarelibra 15:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The article on South Africa is about South Africa - its government, its people, etc. I don't understand what anyone is getting at here. Should the article on South Africa have (before Apartheid ended) focused only on the whites, with a separate article for the blacks? Or what? Establish what you and fourtildas are talking about, please. --Golbez 04:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am responding merely in defense of Fourtildas said compared to your response. How can you possibly state such a thing... "a country is defined by its government". So you are stating that, since I am American, that I am defined by my GOVERNMENT? That the US is defined by a bunch of cowboys throwing the war machine around everywhere? I THINK NOT. Nor did the South African government - especially when they were all white - ever 'define' the country. Unless you think that apartheid was a 'fair definition'. Trouble is, statements like yours lead to only a few things... prejudice, racism, and conflict. I think Fourtildas is merely trying to open up the articles to a broader spectrum of definition and understanding. So along the lines of your 'definition', do you think that if, say, the Hutus were to eliminate all of the Tutsis, that the new Hutu government would 'define' the country? Or hey - even better - do you think a puppet government in Iraq will now 'define' the country? I HOPE not. I don't wish to continue this - it seems illogical to even discuss. Rarelibra 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

A government is the single defining aspect of a country, yes. If there were two distinct but equal governments in a region... then there would be two countries. --Golbez 08:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History of the Netherlands

History of the Netherlands is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Native name/long name of the Netherlands

Shouldn't the infobox here say "Nederland/The Netherlands" and not "Koninkrijk der Nederlanden/Kingdom of the Netherlands"? I'm just wondering because Netherlands (nl:Nederland) is not the same as the Kingdom of the Netherlands (nl:Koninkrijk der Nederlanden), it is only the European part. —MC Snowy (Talk | contribs) 17:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Belgium

Hi,

just wanted to inform you that this project has a new (actually, ressurected) child, i.e. WikiProject Belgium!

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Major code cleanup request

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Major code cleanup request _→AzaToth 20:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Europe#This and similar templates' names

Currently this discussion pertaining to the kinds of templates found at the foot of articles on countries only has three voices – please add some more so any semblance of a consensus might emerge. Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

A short note of introduction; I recently found this effort which corresponds well with my interests and academic/professional backgrounds. I look forward to contibuting to the project's efforts - I have an extensive background on European topics with knowledge of the Americas and Southeast Asia as well. Look forward to working with you and joining the debates below. Internazionale 16:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wesborland here

Hi everyone. I joined this project because I'm interested in improving all Uruguay-related articles.Wesborland 18:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

GDP nominal

Hi, why is only GDP PPP added in the country templates. There is good reason to omit nominal GDP figures. Thus I have taken the liberty of adding the nominal figures to the country templates. I will then start adding nominal GDP figures. Please do, however, check my edits and let me know any suggestions you might have. Thank you. Best Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 18:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have already implemented the changes for Germany, Japan and the United States. Adding nominal GDP figure is necceassary to provide our reader with the best info possible. Stating that Japan is the world's fith largest economy is misleading as it is also the world's second largest economy. Signature^brendelNow under review! 18:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

New maps for Middle East

I have started work on new maps for the Middle East based on the new European ones, and I will post them on here when done... only problem is I don't know whether I should post the Mideast as a whole or make a separate, smaller map for GCC countries considering the small size of Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait and how they would be clearer if we had a separate one... Thoughts? --Amjra 10:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You should hold off (on posting them) until the Europe maps debate is settled above. Ideally we would like to have similar looking maps for every country in the world. MJCdetroit 01:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

THE TRUE ABOUT PORTUGAL THE TRUE ABOUT PORTUGAL

Portugal has 878 years of age.

Portugal is the oldest country of the World (in accordance with the delimitations of borders).

Portugal initiated the Discoveries in 1400 (he was the first one and the only one to have during 200

years the World in its power, no country until today surpassed these 200 years).

Portugal was a World power during centuries XV and XVI.

Portugal nowadays continues to be a World power but he is asleep because when to wake up the great

country of the North America goes to pass of world-wide power to a regional power.

Missing and hard to find information in the infobox

This may have come up before and if so my apologies. I was looking at the Australia article to find the legal weights & measures used in the country, are they metric or imperial? After looking at a few others, Canada, US, and the UK, I found that it is not included in any of these. I did check the CIA Factbook but couldn't see it there either. Surely the information could be included in the infobox with the use of a single line.

The hard to find information concerns the GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal). It lists them in $ but finding out what sort is not the easiest thing. First you need to click on the ranking to go to "List of countries by GDP" to find out that PPP is in "internaltional dollars" but of course "nominal" is in "US dollars". Would it not be a better idea to use the <ref> tag to show what is what. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

According to the National Measurement Institute of the Austrilian government, 1988 was the last year of legal general use of imperial units . However, I am sure that just like the US, UK, and Canada, in everyday life there is probably somewhat of a metric/imperial mix used. You may find this article helpful: Metrication in Australia. I don't really think that measurement systems should be included in the infobox. As all but three countries require "legal" use of the metric system anyway and it's difficult to know/measure how much the imperial system is used in the metric countries. Hope that helps with the measurement part of your question. —MJCdetroit 01:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that did help. And while while the information probably shouldn't go in the infobox should there not be something in the article about a country (and not just Australia) that indicates if they are metric. I don't think that the series "Metrication in country" is linked to from the country articles. At the same time I must admit that I'm not that excited about the subject to try and do it myself. The question has to do with what figures are used first in the infoboxes for airports because a lot of metric based countries use feet to measure elevations at airports. By the way, besides the US what are the other two countries that are still Imperial? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Burma and Liberia. MJCdetroit 17:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Question about Taiwan

How come there are two separated articles about Taiwan(Republic of China), while there is only one article about South Korea(Republic of Korea)?--68.98.154.196 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article bounty

Thought I'd draw your attention to this open bounty of $25 for any country article elevated to FA status. If anyone wants to add to my offer, feel free. Equally if anyone wants to claim said bounty for Wikipedia, get to it! Might want to let me know when it happens, too. Soo 02:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I put up Belarus on peer review a few days ago, see how that goes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 17:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)